DescentBB

it's just a money thang, dontcha know?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie ... ?li=AA4Zjn


everyone gets their cut(or at least Fox and CNN), and then it gets real.

That's a little shallow slick. I think Trump has tapped into many people's basal distrust instincts and is exploiting that for his own gain in the hopes of winning the presidency. Of course, all that attention also feeds his giant ego.

he's tapped into the fact that a core of the GOP faithful are as dumb as bricks, and mad at everything. I get that. However, the fawning by CNN and the others indicates a far more greed-oriented motive on their part. They could destroy him in a week, and will, whenever they want.

I can't argue with that. The press can make or break a candidate, or even a president. But I think Trump is a now freight train that's going to now down everything in it's path en route to victory. I notice that he bent over and kissed Republican butt today and signed that GOP loyalty pledge. So much for being independent. I guess that means he's not his own man anymore.

once some campaign starts looking into his mob ties and runs with that, he's done. The media has a lot of the needed dirt, and has softballed it for some reason. This article states the reason. It's called MONEY. They are turning meaningless early debates into a gold mine.

As long as they make money, why bother derailing the Trump train? The press could let him get nominated just for the money and ratings it would give them.

tunnelcat wrote:As long as they make money, why bother derailing the Trump train? The press could let him get nominated just for the money and ratings it would give them.

I don't really think either CNN or even Fox want that to happen, but odd stuff can happen. Time will tell. I'm simply shocked at the utter lack of cajones out of the 'star-studded' GOP field. No one wishes to do much but tiptoe around Trump? Seriously? Now, I do get the idea that the big money(Koch and others) players are letting their chosen ones sort themselves out before targetting Trump. In other words, let's watch Walker fail miserably on the larger stage, and see if Kasich or Rubio catch fire. Bush has self-immolated, likewise Christie. We have so many candidates on the Republican side that there really isn't a normal campaign able to go on yet. Yet.

I'm reading a lot of butt hurt here so far. All your conspiracy theories are so much smoke. The latest Monmouth poll shows Trump up to 30% favorable. I also found this interesting:

Trump leads in every ideological category. He’s the preferred choice among Tea Party supporters, and Republicans who identify as very conservative, somewhat conservative, and liberal.

No longer just liked by those far right wing kooks eh? Also what is unheard of is:

Trump has completely reversed his favorability rating, which in June was only 20 percent positive and 55 percent negative. He’s now at 59 percent positive and 29 percent negative.

Still think he's is a flash in the pan? Guess again.

those numbers do not come from ANYONE outside the GOP electorate. The rest of the nation doesn't trust him to be competent, and you have yet to show one poll indicating any change in those overall numbers. And, as was seen in the poll PPP just put out, over 70% of Trump supporting respondants felt convinced that Obama was a Muslim. Not exactly mining the intellectual part of the GOP even.

this is downright funny......'business genius'. I actually wondered about this, but someone ran the numbers:


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/02 ... -analysis/




as a corollary, this is also a great illustration of how the game is skewed towards inherited wealth. Trump managed to do a bit of self-damage, but still....

and, it begins:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AAdVKhh

I wonder how well Obama would of been able to answer those kinds of questions back in 2008. Oh Snap! He had a fawning press that wouldn't think of asking him such questions. Trump has "stumbled" before and then gained in the polls.

woodchip wrote:I wonder how well Obama would of been able to answer those kinds of questions back in 2008.

except for the one group in there which didn't exist he was VERY, VERY well versed. I can say this having had breakfast with him in 2007. In fact, Obama could have likely answered every one of those questions in 2002, well before running for President(or Senate).

Oh Snap! He had a fawning press that wouldn't think of asking him such questions. Trump has "stumbled" before and then gained in the polls.

keep defending the fraud. It's funny to watch. 23% of the 10% who comprise GOP primary voters and you're wetting your drawers. Hilarious!!

Easy to say "could of" when he never had challenging questions asked. Your first hand knowledge doesn't count BTW as it is not verifiable.

woodchip wrote:Easy to say "could of" when he never had challenging questions asked. Your first hand knowledge doesn't count BTW as it is not verifiable.

what rock have you been under? You can use something nowadays called 'Google' and likely find his debate transcripts from his Senate run, during the Democratic Presidential primary, and from Senate speeches on the floor in the public record. He not only knew the freaking names and locations, but grasped the nuances and fine details better than some of his colleagues let alone that blowhard Trump. You are in denial, Woody.....all worked up over a guy polling well with about 3-5% of the nations electorate, viewed as an absolute joke candidate by over 60%. Let's see how this works out for you. I wasn't here at the time, but I'll bet you were on here daily in 2008, whining about his 'lack of experience', and now you gush like a schoolgirl over a guy who TRUMPETS the fact that he has no experience and doesn't even care about that fact.

Trump is all bluster and NO substance. When he's asked questions on how he would actually DO things, he only blathers on about his new top position in the national polls, every time. "Hey! I'm top dog! That should explain everything to you moron reporters!"

We KNEW that Obama had no foreign policy experience when he was elected. We KNEW what we were getting when we voted for him. To hear Trump's bragging, he's got a PhD in foreign policy that will work 100% of the time in every real world situation without any costs or downsides. The man's so egotistical, he can't admit he's clueless about something or wrong about something, which is a far more dangerous trait to have in a leader than just being a neophyte.

that is the thing. Obama may have been a freshmen senator, but saying he had NO foreign policy experience is wrong. Further, he wasn't so shallow an intellect so as not to inform himself on issues of the day. For Trump to be unaware of the case of the county clerk in KY, or to confuse an Iranian group with the Kurds, shows that he simply doesn't care enough to try and keep up. Quite a bit like Sarah Palin getting stumped on naming a magazine.

callmeslick wrote:Quite a bit like Sarah Palin getting stumped on naming a magazine.

though I think it's strange that we expect "knows the names of popular magazines" or "reads the newspaper" to be an important characteristic of an executive. Presidents, governors, senators, etc. don't get their news from the New York Times or Rolling Stone; they have teams who brief them. They read memos and reports. The newspaper asks them what's going on, not the other way around.

Also, Sarah Palin had some foreign policy experience -- the "you can see Russia from parts of Alaska" comment was a bad way to phrase it, but she'd been involved in some sort of trade/export deals with both Russia and Canada. Obama was inexperienced, but he chose a running mate in Biden who had chaired the Senate foreign relations committee.

Trump, on the other hand, has nothing. His "foreign policy experience" consists of complaining about Mexicans, and talking about building walls to keep out Mexicans. He doesn't seem to have a team of advisors keeping him informed about what's going on in the world or the nation. He doesn't have advisors who can teach him a Bible verse, despite his insistence that the Bible is his favorite book.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Quite a bit like Sarah Palin getting stumped on naming a magazine.

though I think it's strange that we expect "knows the names of popular magazines" or "reads the newspaper" to be an important characteristic of an executive. Presidents, governors, senators, etc. don't get their news from the New York Times or Rolling Stone; they have teams who brief them. They read memos and reports. The newspaper asks them what's going on, not the other way around.

if one lives in Alaska, and wishes to help govern the lower 48 states, reading political/governmental articles in magazines(New Republic, Forbes, The Nation, whatever) might indicate that one has a passing interest in knowing a bit more. Naming them simply shows some awareness they exist.

callmeslick wrote:

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Quite a bit like Sarah Palin getting stumped on naming a magazine.

though I think it's strange that we expect "knows the names of popular magazines" or "reads the newspaper" to be an important characteristic of an executive. Presidents, governors, senators, etc. don't get their news from the New York Times or Rolling Stone; they have teams who brief them. They read memos and reports. The newspaper asks them what's going on, not the other way around.

if one lives in Alaska, and wishes to help govern the lower 48 states, reading political/governmental articles in magazines(New Republic, Forbes, The Nation, whatever) might indicate that one has a passing interest in knowing a bit more. Naming them simply shows some awareness they exist.

And the governor of Alaska wouldn't have better sources of information on the lower 48 states than magazines?

That's what I find so strange about the sentiment. It's such an odd and indirect measurement. It's like asking someone if they watch ESPN when they're a significant decision-maker for a pro sports team. If you ask an average joe on the street the question makes sense, but not so much for someone actually in the industry -- it's a question that's applicable to outsiders to judge if they have a well-formed opinion, but there are a lot of reasons why insiders might be operating from an entirely different direction that makes what we consider high-value sources to be much lower value to them.

Lothar wrote:And the governor of Alaska wouldn't have better sources of information on the lower 48 states than magazines?

One would think so, but she surely didn't demonstrate access to or utilization of them.

She didn't even bother to read her local papers, nor could she even name those papers. Makes you wonder if she cared about local news, or maybe she was too self-absorbed to bother.

tunnelcat wrote:She didn't even bother to read her local papers

do you think the local papers were regularly getting the scoop on stuff the governor wasn't aware of, that would be relevant to the governor?

By the way, don't take this as defense of Palin. She obviously was out of her depth as a potential VP. But the particular question of naming newspapers or magazines is pretty much irrelevant. Again, it's like naming someone involved in the running of a pro sports team whether they watch more ESPN or FSN for their sports news. It won't actually help you sort out the Palins from the Bidens; neither of them is getting their news from that source.

upshot of all this silliness. There was a poll out this AM, very small sample(about 1000 adults, nationwide) that has Trump beating Clinton or Sanders in a head to head. I am convinced that this is due to the fawning by the news media, to some extent, but it speaks volumes to a society that accepts celebrity as paramount. Another signpost on the road to ruin..........That said, I'll still wager that Trump doesn't even win the GOP nomination. The big money hasn't come out to play yet.

callmeslick wrote:I am convinced that this is due to the fawning by the news media, to some extent, but it speaks volumes to a society that accepts celebrity as paramount.

Or perhaps it's just an indication that it's still 5 months before any kind of election, and nobody really gives a sh!t at this point, making any kind of polling this early an exercise in manufactured drama to cheaply fill 24 hours of news coverage.

And Trump now beats both Sanders and Clinton head to head. :

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... c0cdab26c6

Politics seems to be passing some of you by while you try to keep up with traffic in your 1963 Monza

speaking of keeping up, I cited that poll yesterday, Woody. I also will wager you NOW, at 3-1 odds in your favor, that Donald Trump will not be the President in 2016.