... Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.By the way, Adams says he perceived Clinton as "unhealthy," even though she seemed strong and alert through the whole 90 minutes: "She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event." Hey... that's a bit like Howard Dean detecting cocaine in Trump's sniffling nose. Everybody's a doctor.
Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer....
And Dean actually is a doctor, a real doctor... doesn't just play one on TV.
For young readers: I'm making a comic reference to something old, but perhaps you will enjoy it:
पोस्ट्स
२०२ टिप्पण्या:
202 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»I heard the first part on the radio, and then about another 5 or 10 minutes on screen. My perception, which wasn't much, maybe 15 minutes in all, was what it's been on Trump this whole time.
When I watch him talk or debate, he seeks normal. Not like he is debating, but more like he is just having a chat.
Hillary, on the other hand, seems practiced. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it comes off fake. When listening to the radio, I heard pauses which made me think she was trying to remember her lines.
When I watched it on screen, she said somthing about Trumped up trickle down. It was a memorable line because I laughed at its badness. Like someone fed her that line and instructed her to toss it out there if she had a chance.
Maybe this stuff works on Chris Matthews, but I'm not sure it works on the American people anymore.
There was another line I heard on the radio this morning. She said she was busy preparing for the debate and preparing to be president. This was supposed to be another good line as it was presented on the radio.
But I thought, you're still preparing to be president? What the hell have you been doing these last few decades?
This was my thought as well. No one remembers policy wonkery (and most LIVs neither understand nor care) but everyone will remember if you turn into a foaming wild man. Trump's restraint was part of a strategy. I love the assumption by so many that any Republican campaign is just a string of random chaos.
She had all the stuff she wanted to throw at him well memorized. He needs to do the same and up it a few notches. The material is there. She is corrupt and she lies, and her policies will bankrupt us.
Remind me; Scott Adams is the guy who ridicules anyone who sees just what they want to see in political actors... right?
Hillary won last night on points. She got under Trump's skin, attacked his businesses which are his pride, and was ready with a laundry list of faults, failures and supposed slights that he had done.
She was the bitchy ex-wife in divorce negotiations, and I don't think it will play well with the rest of America.
To keep Hillary awake and prepared for the Presidency will require a truck load of Meds daily and an IV Shunt in both he arms. But if she is willing to save us while she saves The Clinton Cash Flow, then go for it.
The fact that Democrat's are talking about Trump's snuffles this morning reinforces my point. Do they know how unserious that sounds to the average Joe?
Pretty much, yeah. At minimum, Trump needed to appear less scary and threatening. While Hillary needed to appear strong and healthy, and most importantly avoid collapsing on stage or descending into gales of coughs. They both succeeded in hurtling those really low bars I guess.
Ultimately though, Hillary represents the status quo and by and large people aren't happy with the status quo. That may be the most damning thing about her in the eyes of the LIVs anyway.
Hillary had the shakes and her eyeball was doing that thing again. I guess the wandering eye is common among Clintons. Trump was fine considering most of the questions were favorable to Clinton and he had to debate two leftists, not just one.
Hillary looked good. In fact, I haven't seen her look that good since we had to call her Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Chuck said...
Remind me; Scott Adams is the guy who ridicules anyone who sees just what they want to see in political actors... right?
9/27/16, 10:27 AM
Remind me: Buck Buck "Blabbity Blah" Chuck is the guy who ridicules Trump and only Trump anytime and all the time for any reason or no reason...right?
Really interested to know what you will do if he wins, Chuck.
I will vote for Trump, and I wanted him to debate well. Now on the following day, I feel that his chronically reckless, un-Presidential talk will lose him the election.
A good example of such talk was his diatribe about the USA's airports being in "Third World" condition, compared to the airports in China and Dubai.
It wasn't enough for him to say merely that our airports can and should be significantly improved. No, he had to say that our airports are "Third World".
If he does win the election (and I wish he would win), then he will talk like a buffoon every day.
"She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event."
Hillary Viagra.
One shot and she'll stand erect for a couple hours.
If she's still up after 4 hours they call the doctors back.
Scott Adams seems to have moved from educating the public about persuaders to active trying to persuade the public.
He has so much riding on whether his prediction will be right that he is actively trying to help.
It's reassuring that Scott said this, since he has been so consistently wrong.
I just want to know what President Hillary will do about all the Deplorables. Will they be forced into baskets? Is that implicit? Does she have a final solution?
He too mentions her creepshow fake smile.
I think this commentary by Mollie Hemingway is a pretty good summary what most others are saying.
At least Scott Adams is trying. Here's what Nate Silver has to say:
Clinton Won The Debate, Which Means She’s Likely To Gain In The Polls
If she doesn’t, Trump could be tough to beat.
Lester Holt conducted himself in a biased manner, but Super-Negotiator Trump approved Holt as the moderator. If Trump's negotiation of the debate procedures resulted in Holt moderating the first debate, then I doubt that Trump will outsmart China in trade deals.
Hillary's color was good.
funeralsuppliesonline.com
Yeah. Because of this debate, we are supposed to forget the 2,497, 846 reasons why we would never vote for Hillary: The world started anew. Right.
One good set of questions that Holt asked was for Trump to elaborate about the issue of cutting taxes and for Clinton to elaborate about the issue of raising taxes.
Both Trump and Clinton essentially ignored the question.
This was a squandered opportunity for Trump to educate 100 million viewers about the advantages of cutting taxes and about details of his proposals.
Trump spent more time talking about Sidney Blumenthal than he spent talking about tax reduction.
Hillary's eyes, even though more lidded and blinking frequently, still noticeably tracked asynchronously during the opening segments. Not as starkly as the video captures previously publicized, but the right eye kept wanting to snuggle up against her nose every time the left one looked leftward even slightly.
David,
What major thing about Trump, his candidacy and campaign has Adams gotten wrong?
John Henry
Both candidates fought an exhibition match; not a prize fight.
"Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. "
Agreed.
"It wasn't enough for him to say merely that our airports can and should be significantly improved. No, he had to say that our airports are "Third World".
Maybe he has flown into and out of Miami. That is the third world airport squared.
It's unlikely the smugly entitled-looking Hillary who showed up last night will lose gracefully, if she does. It will be all over, no more chances, a lifetime invested with a philandering, gape-mouthed possum, DVT from too many airline miles, and a fashion legacy only a Dalek could envy, all for a reputation for ill-gotten gains. If she threw things around the house before, Bill should invest in a sturdy helmet.
When Hillary remarked that Trump got his start in business by receiving $14 million from his father, Trump should have responded the Hillary got her start in politics by marrying Bill Clinton.
Bad Lieutenant said...
...
Really interested to know what you will do if he wins, Chuck.
Well hey, thanks for asking, Bad Lieutenant from New York!
I'll be relieved, if Trump wins, that we won't have another four years of a Democrat in the White House. I will be looking forward to some of the great federal judicial confirmation fights in history. In which I hope that Republicans pull no punches, if (as I can only hope) Trump actually nominates real conservative judges and justices. I will be fascinated, to see whether Trump's pet projects like border walls and trade tariffs require him to make ugly side-door deals with Democrats. He's a dealmaker, that Mr. Trump. A great, tremendous deal maker who will make all of us very happy believe me.
Hillary's smile while listening to Trump looks close to a sneer. Will that play well with the public?
I didn't think her prepared lines would work because I didn't think she'd be up to delivering them effectively, but she was up to it, and her excellent preparation paid off.
Adams is right about the bar for Trump though. The media have spent so much time trying to make him seem like a raving lunatic that all he may need to do is appear sane.
Luke Lea- I was reminded of Joe Biden's creepy sneering laughter when he debated Paul Ryan. I would have thought that would have hurt Biden, and similarly that HRC's condescending grin would come across as rude, but these things play well to Democrats (and independents who lean that way) I think.
I think I remember Trump saying that his father lent him one million to get started in business, and he took it from there.
Don't know if it would have been very effective to "factcheck" her on that though.
I didn't think trump did all that well and was surprised at how well I thought Clinton did.
I seem to be in a minority. The London Daily Mail showed screenshots of a number of polls. Almost all showed Trump winning, most by a lot. For example:
Time 58-42
Star-tribune 30-64
CBS NY Trump by a fair bit
Fox 5 61-33
WCPO Cincinnati 60-35
San Diego Union-Tribune Trump by a lot
WKRN Nashville 63-36
Slate 54-45
(CBS and SD totals were not shown)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html
Michael Moore also thought Trump won decisively:
“Pro-Hillary gloaters doing end-zone dance again when still on 50-yd line,” Moore tweeted. “You must get it in your head Trump is gonna win and act accordingly!”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/michael-moore-says-trump-won-the-debate/#ixzz4LTOToMOn
John Henry
I agree with Freeman Hunt. Now it is possible this year that the polished professional isn't going to play well with the public (obviously it doesn't play well for many, bit the question is how many still go for that.)
I think her team correctly surmised that this was the best possible way for her to play it, and she performed the part surprisingly well.
Hillary's win on "less infirm than feared" vs. Trump's "less scary than he's been branded".
Let's be honest - was hoping for Hillary to fail. She didn't fail.
Trump either wanted to seem controlled and less scary, or just couldn't call up all the many ripostes/attacks available. I do hope, while keeping to whatever 6 dimensional chess Adamsian emotion-bending he has in mind, he can be a little more facile in the future.
These are an infirm 69 and a hale 70 year old ... the wits will only be so quick. Maybe preparation of a massive quantity of barbs can create the illusion of a sharp mind (as benefitted Hillary this time). But it also turns off. No one watches college debate any more. It's a speed-talking competition.
Griping about the refs doesn't work in football; will it work in politics?
I see Drudge (and now Rush) is beating the drum on "Hillary is still really sick." I sure don't know, but what I saw was her looking quite healthy.
Well, Chuk, I know you are attempting sarcasm, but actually that is the major issue in this campaign.
If Hillary! is elected, there will be some re-shuffling at the top, but largely the ship of state will continue on course with the same people heading all the federal agencies.
If Trump is elected, the unclassified employees will be obliged to resign their offices, and we can at least get a pause and a little breathing room while we figure out where to next.
As I said before the debates, it's rare for a debate to actually change the trajectory of the election. And that's good news for Trump, because overall he was pretty poor last night. A few reasons for this:
1) Constant interruptions. A few are forgivable, but it got to the point that it looked like he couldn't control himself. When you're trying to say "I have a great temperament" and everyone sees you cannot stop interrupting your opponent and the moderator, it undercuts that.
2) Failure to steer answers towards areas that help him. Did he mention Obamacare (which is more unpopular than ever now) even once? Did he mention his wall--which while I think he isn't serious about but it is popular for him--in the debate? The moderator may not ask questions about these--so you have to be ready to shoehorn them in. There were many opportunities to do so.
3) But he didn't miss an opportunity to go on about "Miss Piggy" or Rosie O'Donnell or his wonderful business career. If you're pro-Trump, you're already on his side about this. If you're anti-Trump, nothing he said would have changed your mind. But anyone still drifting (or going third party) might have wondered why this guy was going on about his personal business. He took the bait that Hillary laid for him.
4) He had good points to make, and was so garbled he never drove them home. Why not explain specifically what was wrong with TPP and the Iran deal? Why not some detail as to why Hillary's e-mail scandal was so bad? You don't just say "national security"--you point out how this compromises everything we do internationally. And follow up with WHY she did this stuff--to likely help her foundation.
5) He seemed to basically admit that he pays no taxes. Why not deny that, if they can't prove it either way without your tax returns? Again, his own supporters won't care, but there's a lot of Stein and Johnson voters who might be turned off enough to flock to Clinton.
6) The defense of his housing practices in the '70s (the suit re: Fair Housing) was mind-bogglingly weak. He says "we never had to admit to wrongdoing"--how about "we did nothing wrong, we settled the suit out of cooperation with the authorities and to save the costs of litigation". Even if it's BS, it's plausible and defensible. And following up with "what about the club I opened that did not discriminate?" sounds a lot like "why not give me credit for the banks I didn't rob?"
I'd predicted that Hillary would try to needle Trump, and Trump would (if he was well advised) try to pull a "Reagan 1980" and come across calm, jovial, and not scary, letting Hillary look petulant. Instead, she managed to needle him a bit, and despite a few good digs (pointing out that she was all talk, her flip flop on TPP) he never drove them home and left a lot of ammo in the dump.
Again, shouldn't make much difference--this is still a dead heat.
Hillary won the election last night because the rumours of her demise proved to be nothing but conspiracy. She was sure footed where Trump was weak. She was on point where he was vague. Any doubts many voters have about Clinton go away when she gets on national television. Note how close the poling was until the DNC. After that the polls skyrocketed in her favor (electoral college). The polls were creeping back to competitive and now with this debate she will rebound back to her solid lead.
"I see Drudge (and now Rush) is beating the drum on "Hillary is still really sick." I sure don't know, but what I saw was her looking quite healthy."
Yeah, if she is ailing it did not come across last night. They'd better hope for something other than that.
"When Hillary remarked that Trump got his start in business by receiving $14 million from his father, Trump should have responded the Hillary got her start in politics by marrying Bill Clinton."
That would have been a good line.
@CStanley,
I would have thought that would have hurt Biden, and similarly that HRC's condescending grin would come across as rude, but these things play well to Democrats (and independents who lean that way) I think.
I agree with you on that. Being smug & condescending to their "inferiors" is a badge of honor for many of these people. My FB liberal/lefty friends are doing posts from folks like James Carville ---- James Carville! --- that Hillary scored a total knockout. Well, yeah, except for the fact that Carville would have said the same thing if Hillary had had a heart attack & collapsed on-stage. I know "objectivity" can be difficult to come by on the Hillary/Trump question, but James Carville?
9/11/2016: Hillary has a major episode on camera--caught by a single citizen after the professionals backed off. This event was preceded by multiple incidents over a number of years. 9/27/2016: Chuck proclaimed Hillary fit for Presidential duty on the basis of one 2-hour appearance without major incident.
You are right, Chuck! What was I thinking?
Based on Instapundit, this comment thread, and my Facebook feed, Clinton supporters think Holt rolled over for Trump's bluster and grandstanding and Trump supporters think he was in the tank for Clinton.
Personally, I thought Holt did a superb job of asking good questions and getting out of the way. The staging of the debate was also superb.
For a guy focused on presentation and persuasion, I think Adams underestimates how much Clinton benefited by showing up alert and engaged. I find the home-diagnostics rather comical.
For Clinton, the race is all about GOTV. By demonstrating sustained focus and energy she gives her marginal supporters a small boost of impetus to make the effort.
They were both terrible.
Trump wandered aimlessly around the landscape. His best line was, she has plenty of experience, but it's bad experience.
Hillary's grating air of superiority and smug smile did herself no favors. That was a lot of Hillary at one sitting. As John Kass notes today, her worst line was the one about taking time off to prepare to be president. My blood ran cold.
A plague on both of them.
There was a ball given which featured a large diamond on display to be awarded to the belle of the ball. Hillary swept in with all her impeccables, curtsied, bowed, spoke and waltzed beautifully all evening. Trump was given a defective microphone, hassled by the wait staff..and he left with the diamond.
The media had a real challenge. All of the pre-prepared glowing accounts of how Hillary had savaged the clown had to be re-written upward to properly feature her stellar performance. The stacked focus group reports had to be toned down in order to be believable.
Had this been Debate 101 finals, she would have gotten most of the awards. An A for sure. The problem is that this is not Debate 101. This was "Prove that Cinderella doesn't have the stuff to make it as the future queen." Unfortunately for Hillary, the slipper fit well enough for Trump to dance the entire dance without falling down. As Trump left I overheard his handlers say: "Well done, your majesty. The wine stains will come out in time for your inauguration."
And to Mike Sylwester: Remember to whom Trump is speaking. Hint: The elites believe they are (deplorable) buffoons.
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
Remind me; Scott Adams is the guy who ridicules anyone who sees just what they want to see in political actors... right?
Not exactly. He does not ridicule, he calls it "confirmation bias". You see what confirms your preconceived bias. Easy example:, did Trump perform exactly as you expected him to, Chuck? Did he do, or say, anything at all that looked or sounded better than you expected?
Personally, I was hoping Clinton would have a coughing fit and look weak, but I actually think she looked pretty good. Others are talking about her fake smile,almost grasping at straws , in my opinion.
No doubt there is something wrong with her.
Unfortunately it was not evident last night. Looking at the "collapsing" vid a couple of more times, it is evident she was stiff, not limp, and was being carried into the van. She did not collapse,or faint, the people holding her up seemed to weaken and let her down a bit, causing her feet to drag on the ground.
If Trump wants to go low, he should promote that vid in slo-mo with narration and annotation.
If Trump doesn't pay federal taxes, and he appeared to acknowledge as much, how did Hillary know? Who at the IRS broke the law and shared with Hillary's team?
"If Trump doesn't pay federal taxes, and he appeared to acknowledge as much, how did Hillary know?"
She didn't know, she speculated and he implied that he was "smart" to not pay taxes.
I'm not sure why he didn't just say her suggestion was "groundless."
Christy said...
If Trump doesn't pay federal taxes, and he appeared to acknowledge as much, how did Hillary know? Who at the IRS broke the law and shared with Hillary's team?
This is bullshit.
I am a Republican who wanted and still wants federal prosecutions of the miscreants at the IRS. I support Citizens United with every fiber of my being, and I'd support an impeachment of John Koskinen. I am a fan, of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).
But you make the Trumpist presumption that the Hillary Clinton charge was based upon a criminal leak of information. Which makes all of us IRS-critic/Republicans look bad.
The way that Trump's basic tax information is known, is as she stated; the Washington Post (among many others, if you don't care for the Post) reported it back in May, based on public documents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-income-tax-returns-once-became-public-they-showed-he-didnt-pay-a-cent/2016/05/20/ffa2f63c-1b7c-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html
A re-listening of the debate, or a read of the transcript, shows that Mrs. Clinton was very careful and very admirably accurate about how she stated the claim. You should go back and do that, instead of wallowing in the Trump fever swamps.
For young readers:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!
There is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.
--Learned Hand
The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935).
I expected Trump to come up with howler after howler that they would use to peg him as a racist/sexist/homophobe. And instead he sounded... reasonable.
A few times she was able to get him to walk down the rabbit hole and have to explain himself more than he should have. For example, his answer on whether he supported the Iraq war. He spent WAY too much time saying "Check out Sean Hannitys interviews" It came off as defensive.
HE should simpy have said. "one interview I expressed mild support. But even in that interview I was ambivalent. In all subsequent interviews I was against the war. Even in interviews prior to the war starting. YOU however, VOTED for the war. And you supported Obama as he ended the war prematurely. I wasn't in govt so I had no power over what happens whether I suport it or not. YOU however, were directly responsible since you voted to give the power to the president to wage war, AND then were part of the administration that cut the legs out from under us in Iraq. So lets not quibble about whether I was for or against Iraq. I was just a citizen at the time. You are directly resonsible. BITCH!"
(ok, that last bitch was added for emphasis).
Aside from a few times where he went down the rabbit hole (he also did it on the birther issue) , HE DID FINE. And actually, if I could fault him for something aside from what I already said, it was what he DIDNT say, rather than what he said. When it came time to discuss cyber security that would have been a great time to get more into the email scandal. He never discussed the clinton foundation.
So it was more a quesiton of having openings he didnt take advantage of than that he flubbed majorly.
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-income-tax-returns-once-became-public-they-showed-he-didnt-pay-a-cent/2016/05/20/ffa2f63c-1b7c-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html"
People who are good with money know the loopholes that allow them to pay less taxes. This, by the way is one reason why the democrats "We'll make the rich pay their fair share" will never fly.
The question is, was Trump jailed for not paying any taxes, like Wesley Snipes? Did the IRS say he OWED taxes? No? THen it wasn't illegal.
Re airports -
It comes down to cases, but in many of these he is absolutely correct. Many US airports compare poorly with facilities in many "third world" countries. The air transport system as a whole certainly does do poorly in metrics such as wait times and delays also. This is not hyperbole. It may be unwelcome and hurtful to American amour propre, but truth is truth.
And over the top hyperbole is typical of even traditional political speech.
Robert Fulton at 11:30 AM
And to Mike Sylwester: Remember to whom Trump is speaking. Hint: The elites believe they are (deplorable) buffoons.
Trump launched a diatribe about the USA's airports being in "Third World" conditions, compared the the airports of China and Dubai.
I fly in an airplane about once every two years. All the airports I have been in looked OK to me.
Of course, maybe if I myself ever had been in an airport in China or Dubai, then I would feel ashamed of our airports here in the USA.
I would characterize Trump's huge concern about international airports as ELITIST.
Furthermore, I doubt that the luxury of our airports is the business of the Federal Government. If Trump becomes President, will he really ask Congress to provide significant funding to make our "Third World" airports as fancy as the airports in China and Dubai?
This "Third World" airport idea of his is just some nonsense rattling around in his skull. He himself has been personally impressed by the international airports in China and Dubai, and he is comparing them to the airport in Dubuque, Iowa.
Now, when he has an audience of 100 million voters, one of the first issues he raises is that our airports are like the airports in the "Third World", and he as President will do something about it.
He's a buffoon.
I am voting for him anyway.
Confirmation Bias is a powerful Fresnel lens. It distorts intellect and skews perception.
My team....or else.
And if all else fails, blame the official.
One thing Trump has to really hit her on is when she says "we need to do x,y, and z." he did bring it up a lot, but he has to stress "Then why isn't Obama doing these things? When she was part of the adminstration why didn't these problems get addressed. She likes to pretend like she has nothing to do with whats going on now. PResident Obama is president NOW. the inner cities are worse, NOW, under Obama. Dont' tell us what needs to be done as if you dont control the hands of power already. If you were going to do something, you would have done it already.
Usually an attack line comes out of the debates and then the media swarms all over it. I think they've found their attack line.
Trump commented on a woman's weight in Miss Universe.
They will make this into the next Khan moment. Women's weight is too PC a subject. Ugly women everywhere will jump on this.
HotAir has set the stage for this discussion. I'm betting this will be the focus all week. Polls to follow.
jr565 said...
...
The question is, was Trump jailed for not paying any taxes, like Wesley Snipes? Did the IRS say he OWED taxes? No? THen it wasn't illegal.
I don't recall Mrs. Clinton, or WaPo, saying that it was "illegal."
I'll bet that the graft and corrosive donation money laundered through the Clinton Foundation for political connections and influence was not "illegal" either.
I would characterize Trump's huge concern about international airports as ELITIST
I think you're 180 degrees wrong here. I work at an airport and all i ever hear from travelers is bitching. Mostly about TSA, but also about airlines, parking, crowds, etc.
You might make the case that airlines aren't airports. TSA aren't airports. But these are things you find at the airport and connect with in your mind when someone bitches about airports.
"I would characterize Trump's huge concern about international airports as ELITIST."
Its one world and tremendous numbers of ordinary people travel by air regularly, as a matter of course. Even in darkest Transcaucasia this is in no way elitist. A third-world country improving its airports and related facilities is a popular thing, in the country, poor as it may be.
Duterte of the Philippines for instance, complained about the lack of investment in provincial airports, and he was a populist, elected largely by the poorest of that population (which is unimaginably poor by US standards).
And air travel in the US has gotten much more inconvenient, unreliable and uncomfortable. This is a populist issue. US air travel in general is constrained and channeled by Federal regulation (and State and local, to a lesser degree), even in matters of investment.
Mike
Airports wasn't his point, our national debt and off shoring of corporate profits due to relatively high corporate taxes make it unaffordable to upgrade our infrastructure. Yes the Feds regulate airports and help fund them.
"A re-listening of the debate, or a read of the transcript, shows that Mrs. Clinton was very careful and very admirably accurate about how she stated the claim."
-- She was in no way careful or accurate. She made baseless suppositions [his business deals with foreign countries are illegal. His charitable giving is fake. He's lying about it.]
It was as bad, if not worse, than Reid claiming Romney paid no taxes illegally.
How did she know he didn't pay his taxes? It is public record when he applied for casino license and it was covered in a book by Tim O'Brien. Trump sued O'Brien and lost (his publisher paid the costs). O'Brien was allowed to make Trump's testimony admitting the truth in that lawsuit public. All there if you want it, or remain in the dark. Up to you.
"If Trump doesn't pay federal taxes, and he appeared to acknowledge as much, how did Hillary know?"
I believe she said that the few times he did turn over tax records to gaming authorities in a state it showed he paid little or no taxes. That could be true, but it also doesn't mean those weren't outlier years or that those companies didn't have lower tax rates than his other companies.
The real answer, however, was that he took the deductions allowed under the law like any American family would do, and he minimized his tax payments so he could invest more in his companies and create more jobs.
That would be a more complete answer the next time they throw this his way.
buwaya at 11:51 AM
Many US airports compare poorly with facilities in many "third world" countries.
Give us some specific examples.
For example, how does JFK International Airport compare to "Third World" airports.
Also, how much money should the US Federal Government pay to improve JKF International Airport, so that it looks as spiffy as Beijing's airport?
"HE should simpy have said. "one interview I expressed mild support. But even in that interview I was ambivalent. In all subsequent interviews I was against the war. Even in interviews prior to the war starting. YOU however, VOTED for the war. And you supported Obama as he ended the war prematurely. I wasn't in govt so I had no power over what happens whether I suport it or not. YOU however, were directly responsible since you voted to give the power to the president to wage war, AND then were part of the administration that cut the legs out from under us in Iraq. So lets not quibble about whether I was for or against Iraq. I was just a citizen at the time. You are directly resonsible. BITCH!""
Excellent point. Him noting that Hannity vouches for him counts for nothing--Hannity is in the Trump bag as much as Lewandowski--and can point to no record of these early interviews.
But why even get into that? Just say "as a private citizen I expressed ambivalence, and I wasn't privy to classified information at the time. But YOU were, and you actually supported the war from the very beginning, well through 2008. You had a responsibility and you failed".
And he never addressed her comment that he supported the Libyan intervention--if he did, he could have made a similar response (she was Secretary of State at the time, and had more responsibility over that than she did over Iraq as senator).
I'll bet that the graft and corrosive donation money laundered through the Clinton Foundation for political connections and influence was not "illegal" either.
Only because the Clintons have a different set of laws applied to them. It's not illegal in the same way what she did with her email wasn't illegal. Otherwise, yeah, illegal.
On the other hand, nothing dirty or illegal about Trump and his business.
I'll bet that the graft and corrosive donation money laundered through the Clinton Foundation for political connections and influence was not "illegal" either.
Wow.
Chuckles defending a Democrat and attacking a Republican.
I'm shocked...shocked I tell you.
Trump commented on a woman's weight in Miss Universe.
They don't want to go too far down that road. Trump defended the woman. Also, it was 20 years ago...back in the era of stained blue dresses and bimbo eruptions.
I have been to every major airport in America numerous times. He isn't entirely correct but living in NY as he does, even if he flies privately, he will know that LaGuardia qualifies as Third World. Ditto JFK. Ditto Newark. Ditto especially Newark.
Certain terminals at LAX qualify. Same at ORD.
"I don't recall Mrs. Clinton, or WaPo, saying that it was "illegal.""
-- Then you need to work on your listening comprehension or memory.
"But I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to?"
"Third, we don't know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks."
"And I have no reason to believe that he's ever going to release his tax returns, because there's something he's hiding. And we'll guess. We'll keep guessing at what it might be that he's hiding. "
The implication is clear. He is doing something unethical and possibly illegal [not paying your taxes is illegal, which is what he's accused of multiple times.]
"I believe she said that the few times he did turn over tax records to gaming authorities in a state it showed he paid little or no taxes."
-- Federal income taxes are not the only taxes.
David,
What major thing about Trump, his candidacy and campaign has Adams gotten wrong?
John Henry
Exactly, Adams is one of the few who has gotten it right from the start of Summer of 2015. He might still turn out to be wrong on the general, but past performance would indicate otherwise.
Blogger Rocketeer said...
Trump commented on a woman's weight in Miss Universe.
They don't want to go too far down that road. Trump defended the woman. Also, it was 20 years ago...back in the era of stained blue dresses and bimbo eruptions.
I didn't get the perception that he defended her. Not from HotAir anyway. As they say, the lie gets halfway around the world before the truth puts it's boots on.
Maybe this will backfire on them? But I think they'll try it.
To be clear; Mrs. Clinton laid out several good reasons for everyone to want to know more about Trump's taxes.
And none of those reasons relied on any notion of "illegality."
~ Is Trump really as rich as he claims? It might not matter for most of us, but Trump is selling himself to the American public as a man made rich, through business acumen.
~ What does Trump actually pay in taxes? If he pays almost nothing, then how exactly does he arrange his affairs to achieve that remarkable result?
~ Does he owe large amounts to Wall Street lenders and/or foreign banks? If so, how much and to whom?
~ And personally, I wonder whether Trump is really under audit at all. I'd like proof. A copy of some written communication from the IRS. There is no legal reason that Trump cannot release copies of his returns. It is obvious that Trump has made a cold calculation that the hit he is taking for not releasing copies is mild compared to the hit he'd take if the public saw them. Which just makes me want to see them all the more.
Luke Lea- I was reminded of Joe Biden's creepy sneering laughter when he debated Paul Ryan. I would have thought that would have hurt Biden, and similarly that HRC's condescending grin would come across as rude, but these things play well to Democrats (and independents who lean that way) I think.
The difference is that Biden wasn't running for president. His sneering attitude didn't matter because no one had to imagine living with it for 4 more years. The real comparison are the 2000 debates, especially the first of them.
Chuck said
"I'll bet that the graft and corrosive donation money laundered through the Clinton Foundation for political connections and influence was not "illegal" either."
If the mission statement and IRS original status filings for the non-profit say it's for building a Clinton Library and nothing else, not an international money laundering "charity" then yes the whole thing is illegal. Last info I read indicates the Clinton Foundation is still operating under the original non-profit IRS filing.
Another question, why have the Clintons never registered as lobbyist since leaving office?
By the way, the "I'm not a doctor" line was stolen from Firesign Theater's Jack Poet Volkswagen ads of the late sixties.
Since Trump is centered in NYC, the most likely airports he would be flying out of would be JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty. These three regularly come up as among the worst airports in the country, typically all in the Top 5 of any list you care to use. I have used both LaGuardia and Newark Liberty many times and they look old, which was even worse before renovation, and I have been stuck in security lines for hours to the point that the airport personnel had to push people to the front of the line because they were about to miss their flights. I am surprised when I am not delayed. The other airports which tend to get dumped on Chicago (both of them), LA, and various Florida airports, which are probably also among Trump's most likely destinations. He has a point that American airports tend not be very good, though this may be biased by the ones he has to deal with, which in his defense are among the most important airports in the country.
Now if you want a really nice airport, Atlanta is basically a shopping mall/art gallery that has flights.
BTW, Rocketeer, here is Allahpundits post on Trump and him putting this woman down. Nothing there about Trump defending her.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/trump-miss-universe-no-really-gained-massive-amount-weight/
I love how he said that we are 20 trillion dollars in debt and she countered how it was because people like him didnt pay his taxes. Something tells me she has a problem with numbers. million is a lot smaller than billion which is a lot smaller than trillions. And considering he isnt' in jail for not paying his taxes - he didnt actually owe any. But even assuming he had a massive tax bill of millions of dollars. and lets assume all the billionares have the same tax bill. Even if they all paid the bill at once, it's not going to add up to on e trillion dollars let alone 20 trillion dollars.
The dems really need to be called on thier 'Rich need to pay their fair share" arguments. SOmeone needs to ask them. How much more do the rich need to pay, how much will than generate, and how are you going to pay for all the programs you want to add (let alone the ones we already can't pay for) by increasing the rich's taxes by only 10 percent or something. ANd the dems need to recognize that the rich already pay the majority of the taxes ALREADY.
FInally, why didnt Trump hit her on her death tax scheme? Even many democrats think this is a crazy idea that will not fly.
Which just makes me want to see them all the more.
Good luck...I've been waiting 8 years to see Obama's college transcripts.
Obama never released college transcripts. We all assume that he is hiding something, foreign student status, weak grades, or whatever. If it was all good, we would see them, right. Well, obviously, Trump doesn't want us to see his tax returns for some reason that's not good. As Limbaugh says, everyday, his supporters don't even care. Hillary doesn't have to have any inside info to make this logical assumption. Do you assume the worst about Obama and his college record?
Is the MSM and the Hillary campaign busily fact checking the 400 pound, bed sitting hacker? I am really curious.
Dilbert is beginning to remind me of Cuban. Way too spotlight needy.
Ok, Ok
Gahrie:
You moron. You stupid moron. I was pointing out that the Clinton Foundation, while not illegal, is still dubious and worthy of question.
Just like the Trump taxes. Not illegal, but still dubious and worthy of question.
I wasn't "defending" any Democrats. I was using dubious behavior by the Clintons to illustrate Trump's own dubious behavior.
It is hard to debate the Trumpkins when everything has to be explained twice.
I love how he said that we are 20 trillion dollars in debt and she countered how it was because people like him didnt pay his taxes
He should have responded:
"No, it is because people like you are spending too much of other people's money".
Chuck wrote:
hat does Trump actually pay in taxes? If he pays almost nothing, then how exactly does he arrange his affairs to achieve that remarkable result?
Trump plans on starting TRump Tax U. He will explain how to pay less in taxes, if you sign up for the university and pay a small fee.
I think Adams is right on all that except for how Clinton looked last night. However, he makes a good point- watch how intense her schedule is. For the last 6 weeks, her schedule has been unusually light for a presidential candidate. Indeed, I didn't see her do any post-debate talks or interviews, and I looked for them, though maybe I missed them at the time.
Trump's supporters keep lamenting the missed ripostes he could have delivered, as Clinton's supporters delighted in the misses, but if everyone and his brother knows the misses, did Trump actually have to make them? After surveying the various online polls, most of which showed Trump the winner, even those whose sites are left-leaning (he was ahead on the Slate poll by over 10% at 2:00 a.m. last night!), I am beginning to doubt he missed those opportunities by mistake. My main complaint about Trump is that he didn't ignore the mud Clinton slung at him the entire time- he should have kept it focused on what he would change and let Clinton's attacks go unanswered. When he started trying to defend himself, he seemed to lose that positive focus altogether.
Chuckles:
You sad, ignorant slut......
As I have explained to you numerous times...I'm not a Trumpkin, or even going to vote for Trump.
But then neither Democratic trolls or Republican Establishment lackeys are known for their listening or comprehension skills.
LOL - Trump was obnoxious! There's nothing Presidential about him. He is a little boy in an adult body.
"There is no legal reason that Trump cannot release copies of his returns."
--> The IRS has said there's no legal reason for him not to while under audit, which means... he is under audit. Again, a bit of comprehension goes a long way.
I understand you may not fully understand audits or taxes -- but Trump is being perfectly reasonable in not giving out his data while an investigation is on going.
Michael at 12:04 PM
LaGuardia qualifies as Third World. Ditto JFK. Ditto Newark. Ditto especially Newark.
They all are functional airports.
How much money should the US Federal Government tax and spend so that these airports look more spiffy?
What does Trump actually pay in taxes? If he pays almost nothing, then how exactly does he arrange his affairs to achieve that remarkable result?
Start with:
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/2014/03/11/17-legal-secrets-to-reducing-your-taxes
Trump is a smart guy when it comes to financing. He probably knows every trick in the book. All legal.
I did not watch the debates as my vote is already decided and honestly I do not care for either of these persons to want to spend time with them. That said, it is possible that Trump was trying to be careful on the assumption that Holt was going to ambush him, which from what I read was an accurate assumption. It also was good to be relatively calm given that the news media went into hysterics with almost certainly coordinated "Trump is not qualified" opinion pieces just before the debate. If he looks qualified, it makes the media look like chumps, which is a win in itself.
Or maybe there was no plan. This is Donald Trump. It's half careful planning and half winging it.
I assume his tax and financing scenario is beyond him when it comes to the myriad "tricks"..hires specialists to manage all that.
Scott Adams is very likely going on my "do-not-read" list. This list is populated by writers who tell their audience what they want to hear in the face of all evidence. Adams writes about how Trump is going to win the election, in a landslide, when Trump has been ahead in the polls once, for a few days, right after the RNC.
Adams was right that Trump would win the Republican nomination. The reason that was a surprise for everyone else was that most political writers ignored the polls right in front of their faces. They ignored facts because they could not believe Trump was real. Adams guessed right.
The idea that Trump is some magical persuasive being isn't true. It seems to me that someone so gifted in persuasion should be ahead in the polls. According to Adams, Trump is some super wizard who can shape reality. Why isn't he shaping the polls? As far as I can tell, he's not doing any better than Mitt Romney. The difference, it seems to me, is that Hillary Clinton is a weaker candidate than Barack Obama.
Writers live in a world where reality is shaped by their thoughts. The rest of us live in a world where reality is what happens, and we decide what to think about it. What I think is that people need to look at facts, and ignore magical happy-talk about how their guy is somehow going to win because, reasons. There's a market for telling people what they want to hear instead of telling them the truth. I don't have to buy what's being sold there.
Michael said...
he will know that LaGuardia qualifies as Third World. Ditto JFK.
Not much wrong with JFK. It had major modifications a while back and it is now quite efficient either using AirTrain or by car. The different terminal buildings vary somewhat in their 'niceness' but most are fine.
"Trump plans on starting TRump Tax U. He will explain how to pay less in taxes, if you sign up for the university and pay a small fee."
Step one--make less money, then you'll owe less in taxes.
I don't think "paid too little (or nothing) in taxes" is really the reason Trump won't release his returns--he seems quite proud of paying as little in taxes as possible, so I don't see him wanting to hide that.
However, if his returns show that he has been having negative income over the years, and maybe owes money to unsavory foreign sources? That would undercut his whole "look how rich I am" image, and change "America First" to "America First, as long as we're still on Putin's good side".
Whatever is on those returns is worse for him than the effect of people speculating as to what is on them.
Matthew Sablan:
I want to shove this right down your throat. You suggested that I had a listening comprehension problem, for suggesting that I didn't hear Mrs. Clinton accuse Trump of any illegality in his taxes.
Well, here is a link to the transcript. I am right. She didn't say anything about illegality. Your furtive imagination cooked up that inference.
So really; go fuck yourself. Don't fuck with me like this again, sport.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/full-transcript-first-presidential-debate-between-trump-clinton-n655141
Excerpt from transcript:
TRUMP: It's not negotiable, no. Let her release the e-mails. Why did she delete 33,000...
HOLT: Well, I'll let her answer that. But let me just admonish the audience one more time. There was an agreement. We did ask you to be silent, so it would be helpful for us. Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I think you've seen another example of bait-and- switch here. For 40 years, everyone running for president has released their tax returns. You can go and see nearly, I think, 39, 40 years of our tax returns, but everyone has done it. We know the IRS has made clear there is no prohibition on releasing it when you're under audit.
So you've got to ask yourself, why won't he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he's not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he's not as charitable as he claims to be.
CLINTON: Third, we don't know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they
TRUMP: That makes me smart.
CLINTON: So if he's paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health. And I think probably he's not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are, because it must be something really important, even terrible, that he's trying to hide.
And the financial disclosure statements, they don't give you the tax rate. They don't give you all the details that tax returns would. And it just seems to me that this is something that the American people deserve to see. And I have no reason to believe that he's ever going to release his tax returns, because there's something he's hiding.
And we'll guess. We'll keep guessing at what it might be that he's hiding. But I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to? Well, he owes you the answers to that, and he should provide them.
"HE should simpy have said. "one interview I expressed mild support. But even in that interview I was ambivalent. In all subsequent interviews I was against the war. Even in interviews prior to the war starting. YOU however, VOTED for the war. And you supported Obama as he ended the war prematurely. I wasn't in govt so I had no power over what happens whether I suport it or not. YOU however, were directly responsible since you voted to give the power to the president to wage war, AND then were part of the administration that cut the legs out from under us in Iraq. So lets not quibble about whether I was for or against Iraq. I was just a citizen at the time. You are directly resonsible. BITCH!""
If only.
If anything is "dubious" concerning Trumps tax returns the IRS will whack him.
Concerning the Clintons' so called non-profit foundation money laundering and pay to play operation. Can I see the hands of those Hillary supporters who believe I could get away with this scam with the non-profit Little League Baseball team I sponsor or would the IRS disapprove?
Static,
I haven't watched it yet..but from what I heard he needs to be a bit more relaxed still. He had some of that crazy tangent/ADD speak he displayed during the primary.
"Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, "
-- Here's the comprehension part. She's implying that he has paid no federal taxes when he should have.
That's illegal.
Trump only had to show he was not crazy and was not "uniquely unqualified". It seems he did so. Hillary had to show more than she wouldn't drop dead --- she is "the most qualified person to ever run". Did she come across as such? It seems to me the answer is no.
Well, here's one Wisconsin woman's take:
"As she followed the election coverage closely over the summer, it ultimately drove her to pull the trigger on buying a gun. The thought of life under President Hillary Clinton drove LaCount back into Badger Gun Sales in August where she finally become a new gun owner."
If you read that "We'll keep guessing" paragraph and didn't understand she was implying something illegal, unethical and shady, yes. You need to work on comprehension. The only clear part where she says he's doing something illegal is when she says he did not pay taxes that she implied he actually owed; she let innuendo do the work the rest of time.
She didn't come out and say it like Reid did against Romney, but if you even bother to listen, the meaning is laid out clearly.
"The idea that Trump is some magical persuasive being isn't true. It seems to me that someone so gifted in persuasion should be ahead in the polls. According to Adams, Trump is some super wizard who can shape reality. Why isn't he shaping the polls? As far as I can tell, he's not doing any better than Mitt Romney. The difference, it seems to me, is that Hillary Clinton is a weaker candidate than Barack Obama."
I used to mock Adams, and Althouse for her fanboy devotion to Adams' crazy theories, but I think he is on to something with this "master persuader" theory. It's the only thing that really explains his appeal. It also explains why other candidates who have tried running on his same issues and tactics have failed in primaries.
I don't see the man's appeal, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Whether it's enough to win this election, who knows--clearly Trump fans are not enough voters for a majority, but it's a multi-candidate race and plenty of conservatives will decide Trump is the lesser of two evils (and a reluctant vote, like Chuck's, is worth as much as an eager vote, like say Achilles'). I predict the final polls in this race will be within the margin of error.
Also Chuck, calm down. This is a civil discussion.
For four years, Barack Obama refused to provide to the electorate the government's best evidence about his birth circumstances -- even though the US Constitution includes a birth requirement for the US President.
Instead of simply providing the best evidence, Obama provided merely a summary that was written by an anonymous clerk.
The government's best evidence was Obama's long-form birth certificate.
The Scientific Progressives who now are demanding Trump's tax returns are the very same ones who made -- and still are making -- racist accusations against the citizens who asked for the birth certificate -- a state government's one-page civil-registry record from the year 1961.
By refusing to provide that best evidence for four years, Obama raised the question of what he was trying to hide.
Because Trump raised a stink about Obama's stubborn refusal, Obama was compelled belatedly to establish a new political precedent that the electorate should be allowed to see the government's best evidence about a US Presidential candidate's birth circumstances.
" I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to? Well, he owes you the answers to that, and he should provide them. "
That is sooooo rich.
How much money should the US Federal Government tax and spend so that these airports look more spiffy?
Zero and the Air Traffic Control should be private, as in Canada.
Airports should be paid for by airlines or local jurisdictions that want more travelers.
I am not a 100% toll road libertarian but California stopped building freeways years ago because of Jerry Brown and his lunatic ideas. I drive toll roads when they are convenient. Sadly, a couple of places have none and traffic is abysmal. That's why I am looking for another place to live after 60 years in California.
Mike Sylwester said...
The Scientific Progressives who now are demanding Trump's tax returns
A majority of Republicans think he should release his tax returns.
Matthew Sablan:
Don't you fucking dare to tell me to work on my listening comprehension or memory, as you did above, because it is a damn sight better than yours.
You are implying, without basis, that Mrs. Clinton intended an allegation of illegality. She didn't say that. She laid out three or four clear reasons for people to want to see his tax returns the way that people can see all of the Clinton returns. Nothing about illegality.
The freaking transcript proves me right.
If asked "Do you actually give a shit about his tax returns?", you'd get an 80%+ response of "no"
Mr. Palin lost because he didn't prepare...simple as that.
"A majority of Republicans think he should release his tax returns."
-- I think both candidates should do lots of things; it doesn't mean it is a smart thing to do.
walter said...
" I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to? Well, he owes you the answers to that, and he should provide them. "
That is sooooo rich.
You're right! It should be a great and effective argument against the Clintons. Trump, alone among the '16 Republican candidates, is the guy who has a hard time maintaining it.
You are implying, without basis, that Mrs. Clinton intended an allegation of illegality. She didn't say that. She laid out three or four clear reasons for people to want to see his tax returns the way that people can see all of the Clinton returns. Nothing about illegality.
The freaking transcript proves me right.
You clearly aren't reading what Matthew is writing. He didn't say she explicitly said it. She undeniably implied it.
Some examples:
If you read that "We'll keep guessing" paragraph and didn't understand she was implying something illegal
Here's the comprehension part. She's implying that he has paid no federal taxes when he should have.
The implication is clear. He is doing something unethical and possibly illegal [not paying your taxes is illegal, which is what he's accused of multiple times.]
I can post a definition of imply/implication if you need more info.
"I would characterize Trump's huge concern about international airports as ELITIST."
It would be elitist to not know what airports look like because you have flown private and government aircraft for 25 years.
"You are implying, without basis, that Mrs. Clinton intended an allegation of illegality."
-- She did, otherwise him not paying any taxes doesn't matter. Lots of people pay no taxes. The only reason it is an issue is that she leads you into thinking *he should be paying taxes.* So, if he is not doing what he's legally required to... that's illegal.
It's a very basic logic chain she lays down. The transcript proves you wrong. She clearly says this: "Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes."
She late says: "And maybe because you haven't paid any federal income tax for a lot of years."
And she has already said he should have. If he's not doing what he's legally required... then that's illegal.
"Also Chuck, calm down. This is a civil discussion."
Seconded--no need for personal attacks. The good arguments make it worth coming here.
You are implying, without basis, that Mrs. Clinton intended an allegation of illegality. She didn't say that.
By definition, implication means she doesn't state it explicitly.
Matthew is correct in demonstrating how the left either through their own stupidity or calculation exploit the complexities of the tax code.
I don't know why people think it is Trump that is going to get us into a nuclear war when Hillary is beating the war drums against Putin.
Hillary and Bill Clinton run the Clinton Foundation, established by the couple. The foundation accepts monetary donations from foreign donors, amassing to billions of dollars. Some of the top donors of the foundation were Ukrainian oligarchs. One of them, Victor Pinchuk, was a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a strong advocate of Neoliberalism in Ukraine. Pinchuk became wealthy during chaotic privatization of large state enterprises after the country’s separation from the Soviet Union.
In return, the Clinton Global Initiative which is a wing of the Clinton Foundation that coordinates charitable projects but does not handle money, made a pledge to Mr. Pinchuk, to train future Ukrainian leaders. Several alumni from this training program are now in the current Ukraine Parliament. The same government that came to power after the bloody coup d’etat.
I don't see the man's appeal, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
@Brando, I think Trump is the right person at the right time for a wide swath of the American population who used to reflexively vote Democrat under the mistaken assumption that the Democrats cared about them. Seven years and eight months of Barack Obama have informed them otherwise.
Early in the primary season I noticed that many of Trump's biggest early wins came in open primary states, and I have vivid recollections of open primaries in Maryland when the Democrats had settled on a candidate and sent their voters into the Republican side to select a weak candidate. Something like that is how Claire McCaskill "lucked into" Todd Akin as her opponent. So, having pretty much settled on Hillary Clinton, was the Democrat establishment messing with the GOP primaries to select their weakest opponent?
Now I'm not so sure. After I retired I moved to a more blue collar part of Virginia, and folks I would have expected to be yellow dog Democrats are p*ss*d off beyond belief. If Hillary Clinton walked into a union hall out here I'd think she'd get an earful she'd rather not hear. The fact that Trump (who owns and operates country clubs!) is hated by "country club Republicans" only helps him with these voters.
"House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters that Donald Trump had met expectations at his first presidential debate Monday night."
sick burn...
I actually agree with machine on that; that's like, the "Bless his heart" of politics.
I just drove 40 miles each way this morning in deepest blue Vermont and saw exactly one Hillary yard sign, and no bumper stickers for her. I see almost exclusively Trump and Bernie stickers. I am thinking lots of people are going to stay home that day like me. OK, I will vote in the Senate and House and straight R otherwise.
"So, having pretty much settled on Hillary Clinton, was the Democrat establishment messing with the GOP primaries to select their weakest opponent?"
I don't think they did--they can't really corral voters, and if they could they'd have used them in their own primaries to stop Sanders. For all that's wrong with Trump, he won the GOP primaries fair and square--enough GOP voters (which includes open primaries too) simply liked him. But I think it's personal to the candidate more than anything--there were plenty of "outsiders" and plenty of people running on the same issues he was. Something about his person appealed to those voters.
In resoonse to her insinuations about his taxes he could have gone with this:
"The American people have no reason to fear that I'm underpaying, as I am currently being audited and we all know how the IRS under this administration treats Republicans."
I know it's a lot easier coming up with responses while sitting at home, but I'm baffled why his campaign didn't prepare him for this. They didn't have to tightly script it, just give him the general idea and let him put his own touch on it.
I didn't expect him to do the kind of traditional debate prep, memorizing stats and names of obscure foreign leaders and such, but I thought they would have had him prepare for him to be the best Donald Trump he could be. If he had had witty comebacks, it wouldn't have come across as bad temperament (the way he did react came across that way, because he was agitated, not wanting to let the personal attacks go but not having good material to respond with.) so despite the spin some are trying to put on it by saying he failed to give those retorts because he was holding back, the truth is he displayed the worst of both approaches because he did hold back but he didn't get the benefit of appearing calm, cool, and above the fray.
I think we got to Trump because we had a splintered field and Trump was the only one in the field who was different enough from the others. Everyone else, even if political followers knew the differences, were fairly similar to casual observers. That made it much easier for Trump to solidify a base early. He became the "none of the above" option in the primary.
This discussion began with someone suggesting that Mrs. Clinton had secret, illegally- obtained information about Trump's taxes.
I've shown that what she based her comment on, is public reporting in the Washington Post.
Then, at face value, Mrs. Clinton pointed out four reasons, each of them having nothing to do with any allegation of illegality, why the public may be interested in Trump's tax returns:
1. What is his federal tax rate, and why?
2. What do his tax records show, as charitable giving?
3. What do his tax records show, about current loans?
4. What do his tax records reveal about his actual net worth?
All important; all just as outlined by Mrs. Clinton; all worthy of debate for a presidential candidate who is running on a personal story/profile of being a wildly successful businessman, after never having held public office.
There is no need for any "implication" in any of that. I am willing to presume that Donald Trump has never been guilty of any crime involving his taxes. I still want to see the returns, before I vote for him.
I say again; the advent of Althouse's winking support/tolerance of Trump has vastly lowered the level of comments on her blog.
Matthew, perhaps the implication is illegality, but she could arguably be pointing to him not "paying his fair share" because of taxation avoidance schemes.
The counter to this of course is that "makers" putting capital at risk successfully provide downstream/multiplier streams of guvment supporting revenue. But..that's far beyond the (ironic) class warfare theme Hil aims to exploit.
Where on an income tax form is listed the institutions you owe money to? That information would be on a financial disclosure statement.
The Trump organization is a private corporation with over 500 subsidiaries which might be why the audit is taking awhile. They all tying into his personal tax return. The laugh could be on Hillary if he has been paying himself minimum wage. ;-)
Clinton didn't point out anything. She went in in bad faith and made the worst possible assumptions about her debate opponent.
The better trade for his tax returns would have been transcripts of all the speechifyin' (Hil and Bill) got so handsomely rewarded for.
Chuck, don't you suspect those have more national import than Trump's taxes?
Regarding Trump's tax returns, if he successfully exploited the Byzantine American tax codes to avoid paying taxes, is that a good thing or is it a bad thing? I note that Hillary Clinton used a limited liability company -- called ZFS holdings -- to shield much of her income from tax liability. Hillary made over ten million dollars in 2015, and by her own admission paid only 31%.
I'll tell you this, Trump would be stupid to pay any more in taxes than he had to under the law.
Machine, I just heard Ryan's full comment on Trump's performance. Your interpretation is way off..
Brando,
Personal attacks are necessary if one is suspected of being a TROLL! Alt-house is a troll free zone, don't you know!
There might not be any charitable giving on his personal tax returns. The reason being that corporations can directly write off charitable giving as an expense, as opposed to a schedule A on a personal return like most of us do. Or as the clintons did, giving money to themselves.
It has been well over 200 days since Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton first claimed she would “look into” releasing her speech transcripts.
Eric,
I guess it's open to interpretation, but in my mind he pretty clearly pulled any punches on the woman:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/366041.php
Regarding Trump's tax returns, if he successfully exploited the Byzantine American tax codes to avoid paying taxes, is that a good thing or is it a bad thing?...I'll tell you this, Trump would be stupid to pay any more in taxes than he had to under the law.
And this is it exactly, though the allegation of tax dodging need not be due to a Byzantine tax code. A leftie will be set off by a simple exploitation of tax reporting periods. Par example..
Year 1- GE reports income of $1 billion and pays appropriate tax.
Year 2- GE reports net loss of 1.5 billion dollars and pays not tax.
Year 3- GE earns $1 billion but pays no tax during the period.
Year 4- Leftie squeals, 'GE DOESN"T PAY ANY TAXES!!!!'
walter said...
The better trade for his tax returns would have been transcripts of all the speechifyin' (Hil and Bill) got so handsomely rewarded for.
Chuck, don't you suspect those have more national import than Trump's taxes?
I favor making all of it public. No "trades." Including all of the emails on the Clinton server. Release them all. I'll make a judgment about national import after I see them.
@ Mike Sylvester (way up thread). Trump had no choice but to accept whoever he was given as moderator. The final option in all negotiations is to walk away. Trump had no practical way to walk away so he was stuck with little leverage.
Well..seems a trade is the only leverage available...considering the blind eyes turning.
"I know it's a lot easier coming up with responses while sitting at home, but I'm baffled why his campaign didn't prepare him for this. They didn't have to tightly script it, just give him the general idea and let him put his own touch on it."
That's the benefit of preparing without coming across as "over prepared". You know what sort of issues are coming up, and what your opponent's attacks will be (nothing Hillary said should surprise anyone). So you have to have a good answer ready.
Just saying "I'm smart to not have paid taxes" right after you complained (while hilariously saying you're "not complaining") about being audited all the time makes the casual observer think "maybe he keeps getting audited because he is trying to cheat on his taxes". Not fair, sure, but that's how it comes across if you blurt an out of context quip like that.
"I think we got to Trump because we had a splintered field and Trump was the only one in the field who was different enough from the others."
Couldn't that have been said about a lot of them? Carly Fiorina was quite different, and Ben Carson was even more an outsider.
Trump I think walked in and did his "alpha male" act (condescending nicknames, pretending he was "being nice" while belittling an opponent), and as a celebrity he had more name recognition than any of them, and constantly could simply phone up any Fox show and get a positive interview (they'd been interviewing him for years, and saw him as good for ratings). Then from the moment he entered, everything was about him--moderators would ask other candidates to react to something about Trump, etc.--so maybe his fans saw that and unconsciously thought "leader" or "strong". That's my best guess, anyway.
One reason why racial relations have worsened during Barack Obama's administration is that Scientific Progressives continually argue that citizens' criticism and inquiries directed toward Obama are racist.
Thus, Hillary Clinton argues that Donald Trump's skepticism about Obama's natural-born citizenship is racist. Trump expressed the same skepticsm about the citzenship of Ted Cruz, who is White.
Obama could and should state publicly his opinion that such skepticism is not racist. Obama, though, is happy that political issues are discussed in terms of racism accusations.
If Clinton becomes President, this race-baiting environment will contine to grow and spread.
"Thus, Hillary Clinton argues that Donald Trump's skepticism about Obama's natural-born citizenship is racist. Trump expressed the same skepticsm about the citzenship of Ted Cruz, who is White."
Ted Cruz is half Hispanic. Or are we calling him "white Hispanic" now?
Though as dumb as the "birther" crap was (and is), it's not per se racist. But it doesn't play well with black voters (who still give Obama very high ratings) who see it as the first black president being the first president in history to have to prove his ancestry. You can quibble with it, but those are the optics, and that's why the Dems are using it.
"If Clinton becomes President, this race-baiting environment will contine to grow and spread."
It'll spread regardless. Race is the new everything.
>Had this been Debate 101 finals, she would have gotten most of the awards. An A for sure. The problem is that this is not Debate 101. This was "Prove that Cinderella doesn't have the stuff to make it as the future queen." Unfortunately for Hillary, the slipper fit well enough for Trump to dance the entire dance without falling down."
This is pretty much my opinion. In college debating the judge can't bring in outside knowledge. So if Clinton says "murders are decreasing in New York since 1990" and Trump does not say: "but increasing since stop and frisk was halted and cops were told to pull back" then in college debating Hillary wins. But in a Presidential contest what matters is that the voters see that Hillary is denying reality and would let the murder rate continue to rise.
Similarly it wasn't a good idea for the Clintons to team a mainstream media figure with Hillary and then try for personal destruction. It only puts on public display exactly what the Clintons do to anyone who challenges them including the women Bill Clinton attacked. It showed the voters that the media is in the tank with Hillary as the right keeps saying. It showed the voters how anyone in with the Clintons stops being a professional and becomes a frightened-for-his-job lackey carrying out a dirty job in a dirty way and then a man whose reputation is ruined. It was wearing for Trump but mostly he kept on being presidential.
Then you could see that Hillary is a shameless liar. She did not feel the slightest discomfort over any exposure of any crime or any bribe-taking or any money-laundering by the Clinton Foundation or any recklessness with national secrets or any personal destruction of women attacked by her husband or any other piece of vicious behavior. It doesn't bother her. If she was on our side she might be a great negotiator but she is not. She is for those who have paid her off, not those who pay her. That came out at the debate. It wouldn't matter in college debating but it does matter to voters.
Hillary's line of argument is that when she does wrong it is a mistake without any real meaning (e-mails, a mistake; TPP support, a mistake; super-predator laws, a mistake) while when opponents do wrong it indicates a fixed deplorable character based on racism, sexism, etc. Donald Trump screened tenants in the early Seventies when that was common and he has changed as indicated by his rules for his Palm Springs resort. But development isn't allowed - for him. Hillary and her husband supported laws labeling super-predators in the Nineties and there is a video showing BLM asking her to apologize and her not doing so. She asks what policies BLM wants - for her it's enough to change policies, But she doesn't extend that to her opponents, for them, nothing is enough, all mistakes are eternal fodder for her use in campaigns. And then in power, she ignores the voters as Trump frequently pointed out.
So in my opinion this is why she might have won a college debate but all the polls show her losing last night. She did lose.
Trump has some rough edges but he has upped his game before and I am sure he can do it again.
Please enjoy the following game:
Chuck or Charles Bronson?
Identify the quote with the appropriate Tough Guy:
"I want to shove this right down your throat."
"So really; go fuck yourself. Don't fuck with me like this again, sport."
"It wouldn't make any difference. Go ahead, shoot it off and I'll still get you. You shoot out my eyes, and I'll still find you! If you put a bullet in my heart then I'll make a deal with the devil! I'd trade him for just enough time to come back from hell and kill you! You hear me? I'm gonna kill you!"
I am The Replacement Laslo.
Hillary and super predators:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rsg7GdbLbk
This discussion began with someone suggesting that Mrs. Clinton had secret, illegally- obtained information about Trump's taxes.
Was Matthew that somebody? I read Christy saying that.
There is no need for any "implication" in any of that. I am willing to presume that Donald Trump has never been guilty of any crime involving his taxes. I still want to see the returns, before I vote for him.
And...what? If he did nothing illegal, then why would the returns matter? That you can't recognize her implications doesn't seem to be anybody else's issue but yours.
Chuck said...blabbity blah
9/27/16, 11:03 AM
You are stuck on stupid.
Mike Sylwester said...
buwaya at 11:51 AM
Many US airports compare poorly with facilities in many "third world" countries.
Give us some specific examples.
Man, you're really pushing on this. Are you saying the NY airports are *good*? LGA in particular is a nightmare. I understand there are physical constraints but still. And yes they're working on it. Also for all they spent on AirTrain, the problem is not solved.
But I don't fly much since TSA so screwit. You're the flyboy, if you can't get arsed then neither can I. If you wanted to beef, rail access in the tri-state is at a much more crucial state of emergency. I'm OK with canceling ARC, it had problems, but then the alternative/s really have to move ahead!
But how do you look around you in this dear horrible nonesuch city and say "Everything is O-tay?"
Matthew Sablan said...
Also Chuck, calm down. This is a civil discussion.
9/27/16, 12:30 PM
He's just mad because his candidate is going to lose and Trump is going to freeze him out.
... says the guy who sold a book telling people to make things they want to have happen come true by writing them down a whole bunch of times in a row while wishing REALLY hard for them.
Nice to see that he's at least staying consistent.
Tim in Vermont - I note the same. I was in Washington State last week and I live in Colorado. While there, I noticed hardly any open support for Hillary. Here- same deal. I drive a lot in and around Denver and - zippo support on cars. I suspect hard core will still vote for her - but there is very little desire to display or cheer for her via a bumper sticker or a yard sign.
Saw lots of Trump support in rural WA state. I saw 2 Hillary bumper stickers in Seattle and Tacoma - while driving around on major highways.
"By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate."
Really?
Is Scott sure the HRC folks won't use tape of "winning on points" to micro target w/ ads? Why does he think they won't pull tape of Trump re rooting for the housing market to collapse so he can make dough on the suffering of others; his not being dumb like normal folks who pay taxes (not to mention his plans for more rich-folks tax cuts); his jabbering about fat, ugly gals (incl Hispanic pageant gal); his not caring about minorities POV (e.g. they may not see it as feather in the cap to force a black man to show his papers: "I say nothing"). And, presumably the educated cons w/ questions about DJT's CIC ability may still be in the cold (even though America's cartoonists may be satisfied):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/08/why-richard-engels-condemnation-of-donald-trump-is-a-big-moment/
Why does Scott think the HRC folks aren't going to make sure Americans remember this? Does he imagine HRC (and her campaign) will be locked up in a hyperbaric chamber as she (/they) builds strength to stand for 90 minutes a couple more times?
Maybe Scott is assuming that DJT can get enough visceral-votes, where facts don't matter, even if they're known, such that DJT can write off the traditional, educated con vote that still isn't fooled by the persuasion magic that works on cartoonists. He's probably right.
BTW, am I the only one who questions Scott when he claims he was twice told by employers that he cannot advance because, even though he's awesome, the advancement opportunities must be given to women? If you're in the shoes of the management, the only reason you'd say this sort of thing to Scott would be to F with him because he's such a prick. I can only imagine how all of his colleagues laughed it up behind his back.
Just sayin'
P.S.
What's w/ Scott's neighbor girl? If I, like DJT, wasn't nice, there could be a lot of un-nice things to note about that caliber of looks and the paths that are and are not reasonable life pursuits.
Bad Lieutenant at 3:21 PM
Are you saying the NY airports are *good*? LGA in particular is a nightmare.
I am saying that Donald Trump's talk about US airports being "Third World" airports is buffoonish.
La Guardia Airport reminds you of which "Third World" country?
* Bangladesh?
* Mozambique?
* Haiti?
* Guatemala?
If Donald Trump becomes the US President, will he ask Congress to pay for improvements to La Guardia Airport?
Trump has an audience of 100 million voters, and he begins by saying REPEATEDLY that US airports are "Third World" airports and implies that he will correct that problem. He squanders this opportunity to talk about real, serious issues.
He is a buffoon.
Unfortunately, he is my buffoon, and I will vote for him.
Not that it matters to the magically persuadable who aren't into facts (i.e. most every con who comments as Althouse), but the rest may be able to spare five minutes:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-bewilders-with-foreign-policy-answers-773764163573
Keep in mind that Engel is often trashing the BHO administration.
Brando: "Trump I think walked in and did his "alpha male" act .. and as a celebrity he had more name recognition than any of them."
Trump walked in and said build a f*king wall on the Southern border. Trump walked in and said we get stiffed with bad trade deals, and our companies leave the US and build factories in foreign countries thereby losing US jobs.
Trump walked in and said we need to stop letting Islamic terrorists come in and kill Americans.
Trump then said, "I'm going to fix all that."
Nobody else said any of that. Eventually some of them said, "Oh yeah, me too." But nobody believed them.
People looked at Trump and asked, What does he know about building things? What does he know about negotiating? What do the others know about building things or negotiating?
Try not to be so transparently clueless.
Please consider cutting some slack for Chuck. He's just tying to win the free trip to Disneyworld being offered by Soros for the most pro-Hillary / anti-Trump comments this week.
khesanh0802 at 1:36 PM
Trump had no choice but to accept whoever he was given as moderator. The final option in all negotiations is to walk away. Trump had no practical way to walk away so he was stuck with little leverage.
If Trump becomes US President, our State Department and Commerce Department will tell him likewise that he has no practical way to walk away from negotiated trade deals.
Trump walked away from a debate because Megyn Kelly was proposed as a moderator. He could have walked away likewise because of Lester Holt.
Trump brags that he is a super-tough negotiator. So far, one result has been that the first moderator in this election race has been Lester Holt.
Not only did Super-Tough-Negotiator Trump agree to Lester Holt as the first debate's moderator, he agreed to rules that enabled Holt to ...
* direct different questions to Trump and to Clinton
* direct follow-up questions only to Trump
* spend a large portion of the debate time on Trump's supposed racism, sexism and birtherism.
Blogger Greek Donkey said...
Scott Adams seems to have moved from educating the public about persuaders to active trying to persuade the public.
He has so much riding on whether his prediction will be right that he is actively trying to help.
Eh, not really. No matter what happens, Adams will still be rich and have a top 5 comic strip and the book sales that drives. He can moonlight as a pundit all he wants without it affecting his day job or bottom-line.
"He can moonlight as a pundit all he wants without it affecting his day job or bottom-line."
I think he does the speaking gigs. So the extra publicity that flows from his latching on to the election could help up his fees.
"I say again; the advent of Althouse's winking support/tolerance of Trump has vastly lowered the level of comments on her blog."
We forgive you, Chuck. Batshit crazy will do that to a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Re airports -
This is a relatively objective source - these are customer ratings -
http://www.worldairportawards.com/awards/world_airport_rating.html
http://www.worldairportawards.com/
Service quality - hey, theres a wiki -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airport_Service_Quality_Award_winners#Best_Airport_Worldwide
And an international organization -
http://www.aci.aero/Airport-Service-Quality/ASQ-Awards/Current-Winners
So as to avoid subjectivity as much as possible.
I do recall being rather impressed at Kuala Lumpur some years ago.
And not so at La Guardia, which is not slick and rather run down.
Mike Sylvester Please tell me how Trump could have walked away from the "presidential debates". It was not politically possible . He knew Clinton would be tough, but not debating was a sure loser. Can't you imagine the Clinton propaganda?
As to being told by State or Commerce that he can't negotiate or re-negotiate trade deals - have you been watching the campaign? It is unlikely anyone at State will tell him what he can't do because they will know damn well that even if they can't be fired they can be shunted aside.
I am sure the rules outlined for the debate were the same for everyone. How the "moderator" chose to handle his role was not up to Trump. If you have a different set of facts I'd be interested in seeing them. Trump will continue to make noise about Holt's unfairness and apparently those who saw it and analyzed it agree with him. There are two more rounds of debates. Maybe Clinton will collapse in one of them. Trump will improve his performance and Clinton will still be Clinton.
AReasonableMan said...
Mike Sylwester said...
The Scientific Progressives who now are demanding Trump's tax returns
A majority of Republicans think he should release his tax returns.
I don't thinkyou have a very good grasp on this 'majority' thing.
So Adams thinks Trump's debate performance made him look less scary or crazy? People actually give credence to Adam's scribblings? Good God, it's gotten beyond weird in Trump land.
Remember how you all thought it would be Clinton who would try to weasel out of debating? LOL. Told you so.
..."you all thought......
By absolutely no definitions of the word 'all' that lie outside your fevered brain.
Blogger Greek Donkey said...
I think Milo is hot!
Remember how you all thought it would be Clinton who would try to weasel out of debating?
I did. I expected Trump to hit her harder...much harder. I bet Clinton did too.
Trump I think walked in and did his "alpha male" act
Well...the main reason Trump won was that the opposition to him was so splintered, and incapable of/unwilling to unify to defeat him. (Very similar to the election of 1860...if the Democrats had nominated only one candidate, Lincoln would never have been elected. His name didn't even appear on southern ballots.)
If the Establishment had gotten their way, and everyone rallied around Jeb, he probably would have beat Trump. But the Establishment never realized/admitted to themselves that the base would never support another Bush. They really thought they could ram him down our throats.
If the dissidents had gotten their way, and everyone rallied around Rubio, or preferably Cruz, they could have beaten Trump. But the Establishment feared and hated them more than Trump.
So we wind up with a shit sandwich. Which is still better than Cruella de Ville. Johnson and Stein are subpar candidates also, even for their parties. 330 million people and this is the best we can do?
Hey, Rusty!
I don't think you have a real good grasp on this "majority" thing. Just up above, you ridiculed the notion that polling showed that a majority of Republicans felt that Trump should release copies of his tax returns. What you said:
Rusty said...
...
I don't thinkyou [sic] have a very good grasp on this 'majority' thing.
But, um, there actually is a poll. By one of the nation's most respected pollsters (Quinnipiac University). And here's the link. Polling from late August -- a month ago -- asking that question (it's question #48 in the survey results) specifically:
https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2375
"48. Do you think Donald Trump should publicly release his tax returns, or not?"
62% of Republicans answered "Yes."
31% of Republicans answered "No."
Quinnipiac's margin of error is 2.5%; so these results were conclusive. And in this case, the respondents were all identified as "likely voters."
Now you can fiddle or fight with the numbers. Maybe you've got some other polling to cite. Those might all be intelligent responses, but you supplied none of that. So here is an academic-sponsored poll, on the exact question at issue, and yet you popped off with what is charitably described as a smart-assed reply, with you basically making the suggestion that no such poll exists, and the commenter whom you were taking on was being foolish in suggesting that in fact a majority of Republicans really do feel that Trump should release copies of his returns. The results are there, they support the result that you doubted, and instead of being a smart ass, you are just left as a colossal dumb ass.
Maybe you'll be more careful the next time you pop off. Rusty.
Please tell me how Trump could have walked away from the "presidential debates".
He could have insisted on a different moderator and fairer rules.
Chuck finds a poll to support his position, which is nice, but I have to wonder about Question 48. 48? I've responded to two polls in the last twenty years -- each had less than ten questions. What's the intro to that call: "Do you have 30 minutes or so to answer our (at least) 48 question poll?" I'm calling bullshit.
What a miserable fucking thread.
~ Commenter Christy suggests that Hillary may have gotten illegally-supplied tax information on Trump. I supply the WaPo link that shows exactly what Hillary was talking about, published last May. Read the story, Trumpkins.
~ Commenter Matthew Sablan challenged me on the notion of whether or not Hillary accused Trump of any illegality in his tax returns. I supply the link to the NBC transcript and the relevant quote that shows she never uttered a word about any accusation of any illegality. Read the transcript, Trumpkins.
~ Commenter Rusty tries to ridicule someone who noted that "A majority of Republicans think [Trump] should release his tax returns." Rusty replies with the trash talk that, "I don't think you have a very good grasp on this 'majority' thing." Then I supply the link to the Quinnipiac poll that says precisely that. And Fabi's retort is that he "call[s] bullshit" on Quinnipiac University's polling. No other poll; no serious question of Quinnipiac's methodology. Just another Trump zombie, spouting internet bullshit. Read the poll, Trumpkins.
I see I've been upgraded from a "pussy" to a "Trump zombie". You were saying something about seriousness, I think. Have you ever answered a political poll with at least 48 questions, Chuck -- I notice you avoided that aspect before you resorted to name calling.
Oh I rilly, rilly, want to be called a cunt. that would make my day.
Making a point about the number of questions in the poll is a question of methodology, Chuck. How did you divine that I hadn't read the poll? Please explain.
Of course. Internet dude who has responded to two polls in twenty years (and whom I presume has never, like, conducted a poll) knows more than the Ph.D's at Quinnipiac:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
So much more, in fact, that he can simply call "bullshit" because, like, man, 48 questions!
Hey, cunt.
Hey, Jon.
Jon:
This one's for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQj--Kjn0z8
roughly 25 years ago, with reference to roughly 25 years before that, and posting that roughly 25-years-ago thing I am, roughly 25 years later
how hard is it, anyway, to just get stuff
Yo, Jon ^
"So we wind up with a shit sandwich. Which is still better than Cruella de Ville. Johnson and Stein are subpar candidates also, even for their parties. 330 million people and this is the best we can do?"
I hear you--the lousiness of this slate (certainly worse than even the worst options of any past election I've voted in) is such that it gives me a sort of calm feeling--no matter what, we're badly screwed and this country is going into a hole that will be hard to get out of. The Roman Empire went through a long string of awful emperors during its decline, and maybe the poor leadership reflects something rotten in the society that produces it.
"Trump walked in and said build a f*king wall on the Southern border. Trump walked in and said we get stiffed with bad trade deals, and our companies leave the US and build factories in foreign countries thereby losing US jobs.
Trump walked in and said we need to stop letting Islamic terrorists come in and kill Americans."
The fact that you bought all that and what's more, thought every other candidate was fine with illegal immigration (unlike waffler Trump), loves companies leaving the U.S., and is ho hum about Islamic terrorists coming in and killing Americans just proves my point.
You can insult me all you want, commenter who hides behind "unknown" status, but you seem to be yet another Trumpite who bought into whatever persuasion techniques Trump used on you. Yes, he was the "first" person to bring up illegal immigration! (Provided you never paid attention to any other candidate) Yes, he was the one who was willing to use the term "Islamic radicalism"! (No one ever heard that term before he used it!)
Thanks for proving my point, however unwittingly you did it.
Of course. Internet dude who has responded to two polls in twenty years (and whom I presume has never, like, conducted a poll) knows more than the Ph.D's at Quinnipiac:
Appealing to authority? Nice. For a "science" that is unverifiable in the slightest.
Man...for a lifelong Republican, Chuckles sure spends a lot of time attacking the Republican candidate and defending the Democratic candidate.
I'm starting to think he just might be a Moby......
Hillary looked good. In fact, I haven't seen her look that good since we had to call her Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Maybe they’ve found that happy medium with the medications. Finding the right dosage is tricky.
To expect any talking head to be a fair moderator and accurate “fact-checker” is fantasy. Every talking head believes it is their duty to prop Hillary up and bring Trump down. There are no exceptions.
They have to DO something, you know. This Trump surge in the polls is very troubling to them.
So, Trumpkins; does anybody have a poll that has a markedly different conclusion on the subject of Republican-likely-voters' views on Trump's tax returns?
Remember; this little backwater of my ongoing fight with about two dozen of you began with commenter Rusty ridiculing what was in the Quinnipiac poll from late August. Rusty thought it absurd that anyone would conceive of a "majority" of Republicans would favor release of Trump's returns. But as I showed, that is exactly what Quinnipiac found. I presume Rusty had no freaking idea that the Quinnipiac poll was out there.
I actually understand a debate; a conversation where competing facts are presented. But you Trumpkins are just trashtalkers. And not even very good at that. Put up or shut up. Show a different poll; a competing poll; a scholarly criticism of Quinnipac. Something. Anything. Because otherwise, I just want to lean into the several fights illustrated on this page until it hurts.
"I'm starting to think he just might be a Moby......"
Isn't a "moby" a person who is really a partisan of one side, and then pretends to hold outrageous opinions of the other side to make that other side look bad? If Chuck was a Moby, that would mean he's secretly a Trump fan who is trying to make anti-Trumpers look ridiculous.
I take Chuck at his word that he's a conservative Republican--he's not the only one who is anti-Trump and still planning to vote for the guy as the lesser evil. He probably focuses his attacks on Trump more than anything because if Trump fails, he makes Republicans look bad. If Hillary fails, she won't reflect on Republicans.
I think sometimes CHuck goes a bit too far on Trump, though--I don't trust the guy myself, and think he's just a con-man, but also think his opponents are throwing so much at him that a lot of it is unfair or overblown. And all this focus on Trump does take the attention away from his opponent, who should really have been the story this year, and she seems poised to get away with it.
I think sometimes CHuck goes a bit too far on Trump, though--I don't trust the guy myself, and think he's just a con-man, but also think his opponents are throwing so much at him that a lot of it is unfair or overblown. And all this focus on Trump does take the attention away from his opponent, who should really have been the story this year, and she seems poised to get away with it.
I think every word of this is true.
"Hillary looked good. In fact, I haven't seen her look that good since we had to call her Hillary Rodham Clinton."
"Maybe they’ve found that happy medium with the medications. Finding the right dosage is tricky."
Why was Trump so thirsty at the debate? This is the first time I've seen him drinking so much water. Why was he doing all that schnurfing? Why was he so easily provoked by Hillary? Why didn't he have more self control? Why did he make so many faces and guttural noises? Maybe he needs some medication.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा