Yeah, the other guys in the primary probably should've made that point better but I doubt it would've mattered.
"Do we really think Donald Trump is going to be the next president? cmon people" People so far gone they wouldn't care either way.
But yeah, you gotta go pretty deep down the GOP bench to find someone who Hillary takes out. Once this is over there is gonna be a stampede to throw Trump under the bus as well. Cruz looking good for his non-endorsement now.
I just think the answer is pretty simple. Rich guy with a huge ego decided to run, we live in a celebrity culture now, people fed up and he took advantage of all that.
"Do we really think Donald Trump is going to be the next president? cmon people" People so far gone they wouldn't care either way.
But yeah, you gotta go pretty deep down the GOP bench to find someone who Hillary takes out. Once this is over there is gonna be a stampede to throw Trump under the bus as well. Cruz looking good for his non-endorsement now.
I just think the answer is pretty simple. Rich guy with a huge ego decided to run, we live in a celebrity culture now, people fed up and he took advantage of all that.
I think it is a bunch of stuff. Obviously the birth control is 1 thing, cost of living but also women entering workforce and having careers plays a big role. Not just staying home, having 4 kids anymore.
A lot of affluent families just have 1 kid and that has nothing to do with finances.
But obviously healthcare, childcare, education, housing, food costs and basically all the necessities soaring is a big reason why, which no politician or academic understands because they follow BS gov't inflation statistics.
See the latest Illinois pension stuff?
I would think a lot of these states are screwed if a recession hits, but that is the type of thing they probably get a fed bailout for. Not just gonna let 70 year olds go homeless.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...ension-reality-gap-is-about-to-get-even-wider
I would think a lot of these states are screwed if a recession hits, but that is the type of thing they probably get a fed bailout for. Not just gonna let 70 year olds go homeless.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...ension-reality-gap-is-about-to-get-even-wider
[h=1]Hillary Clinton's War Policy: "Turmoil, Chaos, & Catastrophe Lie Ahead"[/h]Submitted by Brian Cloughley via Strategic-Culture.org,
As a result of Trump’s stumbling, Hillary Clinton seems to be on course to become next president of the United States and it is depressing to reflect on what some of her policies might be if she achieves that office. Unfortunately, the future looks bleak for peace and stability around the world.
She is one of the Washington-Brussels war-drum beaters who planned the 2011 aerial blitz on Libya to destroy the government of President Gaddafi, in whose murder she rejoiced, giggling that «We came; We saw; He died». The US-NATO devastation of Libya caused massive deprivation and suffering, opened the way for feuding bands of militants to fight each other for control of parts of the country, and created a haven for the lunatic extremists of Islamic State.
Immediately after Gaddafi was brutally put to death, Clinton went to Libya and declared that she was «proud to stand here on the soil of a free Tripoli and on behalf of the American people I congratulate Libya. This is Libya’s moment, this is Libya’s victory, the future belongs to you». Her sentiments were echoed by the NATO Secretary General of the time, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who expressed pride that the seven months of rocket, bomb and missile attacks on a defenceless country had been «one of the most successful [operations] in NATO’s history». Not only that, but «Libyans have now liberated their country. And they have transformed the region. This is their victory». Both of them were talking nonsense, but have never given the slightest indication that they regretted for a moment their energetic role in creating the Libyan catastrophe.
Clinton attempted to justify the military assault on Libya by reflecting on the military presence of the United States around the world. She expressed satisfaction that the US maintains massive military bases in so many countries as a result of former conflicts and arrogantly declared «You know, the United States was in Korea, and still is, for many years. We are still in Germany. We are still in Japan. We have a presence in a lot of places in the world that started out as a result of conflict. And if you think about South Korea, there were coups, there were assassinations, there was a lot of problems for the Koreans to build their economy, to create their democracy. This doesn’t happen overnight. And, yes, it’s been a couple of years. I think it’s worth European support, Arab support, American support to try to help the Libyan people realize the dream that they had when they went after Gadhafi».
It is apparent that Clinton will be uncompromising about continuing Obama’s policy of international confrontation, and that she, too, firmly believes «that America remains the indispensable nation». It is open to doubt, however, that the self-imposed mantle of indispensability has done anything to further peace and stability around the globe.
The armed forces and intelligence agencies of the indispensable nation have carried out thousands of airstrikes all over the world over many years.From Pakistan in the east to Libya on the Mediterranean, by way of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria there have been attacks by F-15 Strike Eagles, B-52 bombers, helicopter gunships, the A-10 Warthog, the even more terrifying Hercules AC-130 Spectre gunship (one of which destroyed a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, last year), Tomahawk cruise missiles, and drones equipped with Hellfire missiles. The amount of explosives delivered cannot be calculated, but as one indicator of quantities, in the two years of attacks on various groups in Syria and Iraq, «coalition» aircraft have delivered about 50,000 bombs and missiles.
US attacks have included many drone strikes in Yemen where, as reported by the US Military Times, «in March 2015, the US evacuated about 125 special operations troops amid the expanding civil war» but «has launched nine strikes this year against al-Qaida, which the US says is a persistent threat in the region and to Western interests». Other sources record rather higher numbers of covert strikes in 2016 – twenty confirmed and many others suspected – but that is irrelevant in the context of legality and effect.
On July 1 the White House released a statement about its worldwide drone war, and the Washington Post noted its admission that «the United States has inadvertently killed between 64 and 116 civilians in drone and other lethal air attacks against terrorism suspects in non-war zones», and commented that «in releasing only aggregate figures that did not include when or where the strikes occurred, the administration shielded those claims from meaningful public scrutiny, even as it sought to bolster its own assertions about the accuracy and effectiveness of the operations».
Even the Post could not praise the drone war, and recorded that «The New America Foundation and the Long War Journal, which have tracked drone strikes since the George W Bush administration, each put the number of civilians killed under the current administration at just over 200».
Nobody in the West cares about Yemen and the horrors inflicted on its population by the Saudis and their backer in Washington, and it seems nobody cares, either, about the new US onslaught on Libya, also in the name of Freedom.
President Obama rejoiced that his aerial blitzes around the globe are increasing and in June declared that «over the past two months I’ve authorized a series of steps to ratchet up our fight against ISIL [Islamic State]: additional US personnel, including Special Forces, in Syria to assist local forces battling ISIL there; additional advisors to work more closely with Iraqi security forces, and additional assets, including attack helicopters; and additional support for local forces in northern Iraq. Our aircraft continue to launch from the USS Harry Truman, now in the Mediterranean. Our B-52 bombers are hitting ISIL with precision strikes. Targets are being identified and hit even more quickly – so far, 13,000 airstrikes. This campaign at this stage is firing on all cylinders». And that was before he attacked Libya, yet again.
President Obama fired on a few more cylinders when, as reported on August 4 by the US military journal Stars and Stripes, «American warplanes attacked Islamic State group fighters in northern Libya on Wednesday, marking a third consecutive day of US airstrikes in the war-torn nation». It can be expected that the campaign will continue for the last remaining months of Obama’s war-promoting presidency – and that his likely successor will pay as little regard as he has to international and domestic laws concerning such gung-ho forays.
Hillary Clinton has not criticised or even questioned Obama’s years of aerial bombardment around the world and her foreign policy adviser, Jeremy Bash, told London’s Daily Telegraph that she will order a «full review» of US strategy on Syria as a «first key task» of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the «murderous» nature of the Assad regime. He said that Mrs Clinton would work to get Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, «out of there».
President Assad has been selected as another target for the Clinton policy of «We came; We saw; He died» and his country appears doomed to a rerun of the Libya fiasco.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, there will be an even greater emphasis on global airstrikes and confrontation in general. Turmoil, chaos and catastrophe lie ahead.
As a result of Trump’s stumbling, Hillary Clinton seems to be on course to become next president of the United States and it is depressing to reflect on what some of her policies might be if she achieves that office. Unfortunately, the future looks bleak for peace and stability around the world.
She is one of the Washington-Brussels war-drum beaters who planned the 2011 aerial blitz on Libya to destroy the government of President Gaddafi, in whose murder she rejoiced, giggling that «We came; We saw; He died». The US-NATO devastation of Libya caused massive deprivation and suffering, opened the way for feuding bands of militants to fight each other for control of parts of the country, and created a haven for the lunatic extremists of Islamic State.
Immediately after Gaddafi was brutally put to death, Clinton went to Libya and declared that she was «proud to stand here on the soil of a free Tripoli and on behalf of the American people I congratulate Libya. This is Libya’s moment, this is Libya’s victory, the future belongs to you». Her sentiments were echoed by the NATO Secretary General of the time, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who expressed pride that the seven months of rocket, bomb and missile attacks on a defenceless country had been «one of the most successful [operations] in NATO’s history». Not only that, but «Libyans have now liberated their country. And they have transformed the region. This is their victory». Both of them were talking nonsense, but have never given the slightest indication that they regretted for a moment their energetic role in creating the Libyan catastrophe.
Clinton attempted to justify the military assault on Libya by reflecting on the military presence of the United States around the world. She expressed satisfaction that the US maintains massive military bases in so many countries as a result of former conflicts and arrogantly declared «You know, the United States was in Korea, and still is, for many years. We are still in Germany. We are still in Japan. We have a presence in a lot of places in the world that started out as a result of conflict. And if you think about South Korea, there were coups, there were assassinations, there was a lot of problems for the Koreans to build their economy, to create their democracy. This doesn’t happen overnight. And, yes, it’s been a couple of years. I think it’s worth European support, Arab support, American support to try to help the Libyan people realize the dream that they had when they went after Gadhafi».
It is apparent that Clinton will be uncompromising about continuing Obama’s policy of international confrontation, and that she, too, firmly believes «that America remains the indispensable nation». It is open to doubt, however, that the self-imposed mantle of indispensability has done anything to further peace and stability around the globe.
The armed forces and intelligence agencies of the indispensable nation have carried out thousands of airstrikes all over the world over many years.From Pakistan in the east to Libya on the Mediterranean, by way of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria there have been attacks by F-15 Strike Eagles, B-52 bombers, helicopter gunships, the A-10 Warthog, the even more terrifying Hercules AC-130 Spectre gunship (one of which destroyed a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, last year), Tomahawk cruise missiles, and drones equipped with Hellfire missiles. The amount of explosives delivered cannot be calculated, but as one indicator of quantities, in the two years of attacks on various groups in Syria and Iraq, «coalition» aircraft have delivered about 50,000 bombs and missiles.
US attacks have included many drone strikes in Yemen where, as reported by the US Military Times, «in March 2015, the US evacuated about 125 special operations troops amid the expanding civil war» but «has launched nine strikes this year against al-Qaida, which the US says is a persistent threat in the region and to Western interests». Other sources record rather higher numbers of covert strikes in 2016 – twenty confirmed and many others suspected – but that is irrelevant in the context of legality and effect.
On July 1 the White House released a statement about its worldwide drone war, and the Washington Post noted its admission that «the United States has inadvertently killed between 64 and 116 civilians in drone and other lethal air attacks against terrorism suspects in non-war zones», and commented that «in releasing only aggregate figures that did not include when or where the strikes occurred, the administration shielded those claims from meaningful public scrutiny, even as it sought to bolster its own assertions about the accuracy and effectiveness of the operations».
Even the Post could not praise the drone war, and recorded that «The New America Foundation and the Long War Journal, which have tracked drone strikes since the George W Bush administration, each put the number of civilians killed under the current administration at just over 200».
Nobody in the West cares about Yemen and the horrors inflicted on its population by the Saudis and their backer in Washington, and it seems nobody cares, either, about the new US onslaught on Libya, also in the name of Freedom.
President Obama rejoiced that his aerial blitzes around the globe are increasing and in June declared that «over the past two months I’ve authorized a series of steps to ratchet up our fight against ISIL [Islamic State]: additional US personnel, including Special Forces, in Syria to assist local forces battling ISIL there; additional advisors to work more closely with Iraqi security forces, and additional assets, including attack helicopters; and additional support for local forces in northern Iraq. Our aircraft continue to launch from the USS Harry Truman, now in the Mediterranean. Our B-52 bombers are hitting ISIL with precision strikes. Targets are being identified and hit even more quickly – so far, 13,000 airstrikes. This campaign at this stage is firing on all cylinders». And that was before he attacked Libya, yet again.
President Obama fired on a few more cylinders when, as reported on August 4 by the US military journal Stars and Stripes, «American warplanes attacked Islamic State group fighters in northern Libya on Wednesday, marking a third consecutive day of US airstrikes in the war-torn nation». It can be expected that the campaign will continue for the last remaining months of Obama’s war-promoting presidency – and that his likely successor will pay as little regard as he has to international and domestic laws concerning such gung-ho forays.
Hillary Clinton has not criticised or even questioned Obama’s years of aerial bombardment around the world and her foreign policy adviser, Jeremy Bash, told London’s Daily Telegraph that she will order a «full review» of US strategy on Syria as a «first key task» of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the «murderous» nature of the Assad regime. He said that Mrs Clinton would work to get Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, «out of there».
President Assad has been selected as another target for the Clinton policy of «We came; We saw; He died» and his country appears doomed to a rerun of the Libya fiasco.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, there will be an even greater emphasis on global airstrikes and confrontation in general. Turmoil, chaos and catastrophe lie ahead.
Today's data points .. Yet another weak retail sales and PPI drop even though employment front "healthy" (people maxed out debt loads living beyond means with cheap rates for 7+ years and if you dig below the surface the job market not as healthy as advertised)
market yawning as as the data today good for no rate hike..
More questionable tactics once trump shocks even himself and wins nomination and now goes into
tank mode for Queen Hillary..
---------
[h=1]Republicans question Trump's travel choices, tight purse strings[/h]Washington (CNN)The last time Connecticut voted for a Republican presidential candidate, Americans were listening to music on cassette tapes and most cell phones were the size of shoe boxes.
Yet Donald Trump's campaign spokesman insists they believe he has a chance to turn Connecticut red for the first time since 1988, and that's why he is holding weekend rally there on Saturday.
Veteran Republicans, however, see Trump's Fairfield, Connecticut, campaign stop as a fool's errand -- a prime example of what many worry is a political operation that takes Trump's proclivity for defying convention a step too far.
RNC chief voices concern about Trump campaign's direction
Trump has spent most of his campaign time in real battleground states: Florida, Virginia, Iowa and Pennsylvania. But with the general election now in full swing, any time spent in a solidly blue state feels atypical.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Election poll: Clinton leads in battleground state01:37
And, it isn't just Connecticut that has Republicans scratching their heads. Trump traveled to Maine last week, a state that has also been blue since 1992.
Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller says their internal polling shows him up in Maine. Plus, Maine awards two of its four electoral votes by congressional district, of which there are two, and Trump is very popular in one of them.
Poll: Clinton leading Trump in critical battlegrounds
Concerned Republicans say their worries go beyond the campaign's decision to send its greatest resource -- the candidate himself -- to chase one or two electoral votes in Maine, or to what they believe are unwinnable states like Connecticut. The other phenomenon perplexing veteran operatives is that the Trump campaign now has the needed money to finance television ads and ground operations -- they just don't appear to be spending it.
[h=3]Spending nothing on TV ads[/h]The imbalance in ad spending is astonishing. Since the end of the primaries, Hillary Clinton has spent $42.9 million in ads. Donald Trump has spent zero.
"They have to spend money efficiently right now to avoid getting buried by Hillary," argued Austin Barbour, a longtime Republican political operative.
"We saw this in 2012 against Obama when we were working on Romney. They were burying us with negative ads in swing states well before Labor Day. That same thing is happening with Trump," added Barbour.
Miller says the Trump campaign plans to start running television ads "soon" but declined to go further than that, saying he doesn't want to reveal internal campaign strategy.
Democrats see chance to reshape map as Trump stumbles
Trump himself regularly complains about the content of Clinton's paid television ads. "They're false, they're deceptive, and they know they're false," said Trump last week in New Hampshire.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Trump on Obama founding ISIS: I was being sarcastic 01:48
[/COLOR]
Still, he declared it too early for him to be spending money, and compared himself to an "old race horse" saying he is hanging back to see what happens.
"I think we have some pretty good ads but we don't want to go too fast. Just nice and easy," said Trump.
But many Republicans wonder what Trump is waiting for, since Clinton has used time and money to define herself, and more importantly, Trump, without much of a retort.
"Getting buried by paid media is a very real problem. There is no worse feeling on a campaign than seeing your opponent hit you in a TV and you're not responding," said Barbour.
McConnell: Keeping GOP Senate 'very dicey'
During the Republican primaries, Trump's strategy to rely on "earned media" -- the fact that he was a celebrity candidate who deluged the airwaves with interviews -- worked. He won despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent by his opponents.
But the general election is quite different. The electorate he must reach to win goes beyond the GOP base yearning for a populist, off-beat and sometimes off-color candidate like Trump.
Some Republicans outside the Trump campaign think paid advertising could be especially helpful for a candidate like Trump, who lacks discipline, to maintain a consistent message for voters. He has spent the past three weeks creating news story after news story with decidedly off-message comments -- the biggest of which was going after Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Gold Star parents who attacked Trump at the Democratic convention.
Khan asks McCain to withdraw Trump support
Others, however, say they worry paid advertising is a waste of time if the candidate doesn't effectively mirror the messages in "earned media" --- what Trump says on the stump or in interviews.
[h=3]Money and organization[/h][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Trump threatens GOP over fundraising 01:10
[/COLOR]
When Trump first locked up the GOP nomination, he was a self-funder who was starting raising campaign cash from scratch. Early fundraising reports were paltry, but that is no longer the case.
Earlier this month, the campaign announced raising $64 million dollars in donations for July, mostly in conjunction with the Republican National Committee.
And though the Trump campaign made the unorthodox decision to relying heavily on the RNC for its ground operation in battleground states, some are still alarmed at the lagging operations.
Veteran New Hampshire Republican Tom Rath, an RNC Committeeman who has been through decades of presidential politics in the Granite State, says the Trump ground game in that important swing state is minimal.
"Republicans want to see a campaign that has a clear strategic direction that reflects reality and is backed up by a disciplined message and resources," said Rath.
"While it is not too late, it is getting close to that," he added.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Kasich: winning Ohio will be 'difficult' for Trump00:51
[/COLOR]
No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. Yet the Cincinnati Enquirer reported this week that Trump doesn't even have an office in Hamilton County, the most crucial Republican county in the most crucial GOP state.
"The campaign has yet to find or appoint key local leaders or open a campaign office in the county and isn't yet sure which Hamilton County Republican party's central committee members are allied with the Republican presidential nominee," reported the Enquirer.
In other key states like Florida, where Trump, along with the RNC, does have staff, they are outnumbered by Democrats. The RNC says it has over 70 paid staffers and plans at least 20 offices statewide. Democrats already have 200 staffers and say they're aiming for 100 offices in Florida.
[h=3]Time to change course?[/h]Trump's low-budget approach carried him to victory in the primaries, but even he seems to now realize the general election against Clinton is quite different.
At a rally Thursday in Florida, Trump, who normally only speaks about winning, admitted he is having a "tremendous problem" in reliably red Utah.
And new swing state poll numbers from NBC, The Wall Street Journal and Marist show Trump lagging behind Clinton in four crucial swing states: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Now, with fewer than 100 days until the election, the question is whether Trump's "hang back" strategy with his money and advertising will work -- allow him to come from behind and win the race.
[/COLOR]
tank mode for Queen Hillary..
---------
[h=1]Republicans question Trump's travel choices, tight purse strings[/h]Washington (CNN)The last time Connecticut voted for a Republican presidential candidate, Americans were listening to music on cassette tapes and most cell phones were the size of shoe boxes.
Yet Donald Trump's campaign spokesman insists they believe he has a chance to turn Connecticut red for the first time since 1988, and that's why he is holding weekend rally there on Saturday.
Veteran Republicans, however, see Trump's Fairfield, Connecticut, campaign stop as a fool's errand -- a prime example of what many worry is a political operation that takes Trump's proclivity for defying convention a step too far.
RNC chief voices concern about Trump campaign's direction
Trump has spent most of his campaign time in real battleground states: Florida, Virginia, Iowa and Pennsylvania. But with the general election now in full swing, any time spent in a solidly blue state feels atypical.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Election poll: Clinton leads in battleground state01:37
And, it isn't just Connecticut that has Republicans scratching their heads. Trump traveled to Maine last week, a state that has also been blue since 1992.
Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller says their internal polling shows him up in Maine. Plus, Maine awards two of its four electoral votes by congressional district, of which there are two, and Trump is very popular in one of them.
Poll: Clinton leading Trump in critical battlegrounds
Concerned Republicans say their worries go beyond the campaign's decision to send its greatest resource -- the candidate himself -- to chase one or two electoral votes in Maine, or to what they believe are unwinnable states like Connecticut. The other phenomenon perplexing veteran operatives is that the Trump campaign now has the needed money to finance television ads and ground operations -- they just don't appear to be spending it.
[h=3]Spending nothing on TV ads[/h]The imbalance in ad spending is astonishing. Since the end of the primaries, Hillary Clinton has spent $42.9 million in ads. Donald Trump has spent zero.
"They have to spend money efficiently right now to avoid getting buried by Hillary," argued Austin Barbour, a longtime Republican political operative.
"We saw this in 2012 against Obama when we were working on Romney. They were burying us with negative ads in swing states well before Labor Day. That same thing is happening with Trump," added Barbour.
Miller says the Trump campaign plans to start running television ads "soon" but declined to go further than that, saying he doesn't want to reveal internal campaign strategy.
Democrats see chance to reshape map as Trump stumbles
Trump himself regularly complains about the content of Clinton's paid television ads. "They're false, they're deceptive, and they know they're false," said Trump last week in New Hampshire.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Trump on Obama founding ISIS: I was being sarcastic 01:48
[/COLOR]
Still, he declared it too early for him to be spending money, and compared himself to an "old race horse" saying he is hanging back to see what happens.
"I think we have some pretty good ads but we don't want to go too fast. Just nice and easy," said Trump.
But many Republicans wonder what Trump is waiting for, since Clinton has used time and money to define herself, and more importantly, Trump, without much of a retort.
"Getting buried by paid media is a very real problem. There is no worse feeling on a campaign than seeing your opponent hit you in a TV and you're not responding," said Barbour.
McConnell: Keeping GOP Senate 'very dicey'
During the Republican primaries, Trump's strategy to rely on "earned media" -- the fact that he was a celebrity candidate who deluged the airwaves with interviews -- worked. He won despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent by his opponents.
But the general election is quite different. The electorate he must reach to win goes beyond the GOP base yearning for a populist, off-beat and sometimes off-color candidate like Trump.
Some Republicans outside the Trump campaign think paid advertising could be especially helpful for a candidate like Trump, who lacks discipline, to maintain a consistent message for voters. He has spent the past three weeks creating news story after news story with decidedly off-message comments -- the biggest of which was going after Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Gold Star parents who attacked Trump at the Democratic convention.
Khan asks McCain to withdraw Trump support
Others, however, say they worry paid advertising is a waste of time if the candidate doesn't effectively mirror the messages in "earned media" --- what Trump says on the stump or in interviews.
[h=3]Money and organization[/h][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Trump threatens GOP over fundraising 01:10
[/COLOR]
When Trump first locked up the GOP nomination, he was a self-funder who was starting raising campaign cash from scratch. Early fundraising reports were paltry, but that is no longer the case.
Earlier this month, the campaign announced raising $64 million dollars in donations for July, mostly in conjunction with the Republican National Committee.
And though the Trump campaign made the unorthodox decision to relying heavily on the RNC for its ground operation in battleground states, some are still alarmed at the lagging operations.
Veteran New Hampshire Republican Tom Rath, an RNC Committeeman who has been through decades of presidential politics in the Granite State, says the Trump ground game in that important swing state is minimal.
"Republicans want to see a campaign that has a clear strategic direction that reflects reality and is backed up by a disciplined message and resources," said Rath.
"While it is not too late, it is getting close to that," he added.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Kasich: winning Ohio will be 'difficult' for Trump00:51
[/COLOR]
No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. Yet the Cincinnati Enquirer reported this week that Trump doesn't even have an office in Hamilton County, the most crucial Republican county in the most crucial GOP state.
"The campaign has yet to find or appoint key local leaders or open a campaign office in the county and isn't yet sure which Hamilton County Republican party's central committee members are allied with the Republican presidential nominee," reported the Enquirer.
In other key states like Florida, where Trump, along with the RNC, does have staff, they are outnumbered by Democrats. The RNC says it has over 70 paid staffers and plans at least 20 offices statewide. Democrats already have 200 staffers and say they're aiming for 100 offices in Florida.
[h=3]Time to change course?[/h]Trump's low-budget approach carried him to victory in the primaries, but even he seems to now realize the general election against Clinton is quite different.
At a rally Thursday in Florida, Trump, who normally only speaks about winning, admitted he is having a "tremendous problem" in reliably red Utah.
And new swing state poll numbers from NBC, The Wall Street Journal and Marist show Trump lagging behind Clinton in four crucial swing states: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Now, with fewer than 100 days until the election, the question is whether Trump's "hang back" strategy with his money and advertising will work -- allow him to come from behind and win the race.
[/COLOR]
[h=1]Is Trump Deliberately Throwing The Election To Clinton?[/h]"There is an adage in politics: Don't get in the way of a train wreck," said Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, a top campaign aide to presidential candidates Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. And, as Reuters reports, Clinton's advisers say they see little benefit in her going toe-to-toe with Trump over every personal accusation, generating sound bites that would dominate cable news broadcasts. Rather, they are happy for him to be embroiled in controversy while Clinton focuses on policy.
As we concluded a year ago when the topic of Trump's false-flag presidential run came up...
Her national press pool, which seldom gets to question the candidate, often waits as she conducts interviews with local news outlets.
She has granted few recent interviews to national outlets and rarely holds press conferences, a strategy her critics say is calculated to avoid questions about her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state, and the relationship between her family's global charity, the Clinton Foundation, and the State Department.
If you haven't heard a lot about what Hillary Clinton thinks of a string of controversial comments by Donald Trump that have generated round-the-clock coverage on cable news broadcasts, there is a reason – it's by design.
Since becoming the Democratic nominee last month, Clinton has been touring toy manufacturers, visiting tie makers and dropping in on public health clinics, where if she mentions Trump at all, it is usually to contrast their policies.
Her swift condemnation at a Wednesday campaign rally of Trump's remark that gun rights activists could stop her from nominating liberal U.S. Supreme Court justices was a rare instance where she has directly engaged her Republican rival in the 2016 race for the White House.
Aides say Clinton's strategy is simple: let Trump be Trump.
And perhaps there is more to that 'strategy' than means the eye. As Brent Budowsky asks at The Hill - Is Trump deliberately throwing the election to Clinton?She has granted few recent interviews to national outlets and rarely holds press conferences, a strategy her critics say is calculated to avoid questions about her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state, and the relationship between her family's global charity, the Clinton Foundation, and the State Department.
If you haven't heard a lot about what Hillary Clinton thinks of a string of controversial comments by Donald Trump that have generated round-the-clock coverage on cable news broadcasts, there is a reason – it's by design.
Since becoming the Democratic nominee last month, Clinton has been touring toy manufacturers, visiting tie makers and dropping in on public health clinics, where if she mentions Trump at all, it is usually to contrast their policies.
Her swift condemnation at a Wednesday campaign rally of Trump's remark that gun rights activists could stop her from nominating liberal U.S. Supreme Court justices was a rare instance where she has directly engaged her Republican rival in the 2016 race for the White House.
Aides say Clinton's strategy is simple: let Trump be Trump.
In August 2015, I wrote a column for The Hill titled "Is Trump a Clinton plant?" At the time, I wrote that I was not seriously suggesting that Donald Trump is running as a Hillary Clinton plant for the purpose of bringing a second Clinton to the White House, but noted some facts.
For many years Trump, has heaped high praise on both Bill and Hillary Clinton throughout their tenures at every major office they have held since the 1992 campaign. I also noted that Trump has offered praise and campaign donations that continued for many years to prominent liberals and Democratic leaders such as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
A year after my tongue-in-cheek column asking whether Trump is running as a plant to elect Hillary Clinton, I will now raise the possibility, much more seriously,that one way to explain Trump's repeatedly self-destructive behavior could be that deep down Trump does not want to win the election and is clumsily throwing the game.
I am not stating that I believe that Trump wants to lose to Clinton, but I am suggesting there is at least some possibility that this is the case.
Why might Trump, in theory, want to lose the election?
Perhaps Trump originally decided to run to get some publicity for his business, or satisfy his ego, but never expected he had a real chance to win. Perhaps it suddenly dawned on Trump that he did have some chance to win, and was petrified at the thought of filing the detailed financial disclosures that presidents are required by law to file, for the same reason he is hiding his tax returns and which, I predict, he will never willfully release. Perhaps Trump suddenly realized he did not really want his finger on the nuclear button. Perhaps he just concluded that he did want to do the work that the presidency requires.
Think about it. If a candidate genuinely wants to become president, would he repeatedly insult the giant wave of Hispanic voters? Would he insult veterans who were heroic prisoners of war by saying that he "like people who weren't captured"? Would he repeatedly insult the 2008 GOP nominee and great war hero, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)?
If a candidate actually wants to become president, would he and his advisers plan a strategy that includes praising the mass-murdering communist dictator of North Korea? Which voters did Trump believe he would win with that one? If a candidate truly wants to become president, would he and his foreign policy advisors plan a strategy that repeatedly praises Vladimir Putin, the strongman dictator of Russia, and say he is not sure he would defend Europe nations from a Russian invasion? Does Trump believe there is a pro-Putin vote in America?
Or, as Trump often says, perhaps there is something happening here. Some people might say he does these things because he wants to lose the election and is throwing the game to Clinton.
I have been to many rodeos in national politics, and literally every single major player in politics that I know expected Trump to "pivot" after the conventions to appear to take more responsible positions and say fewer irresponsible and self-destructive things.
Republicans believed Trump would pivot with hope; Democrats believed he would pivot with dread.
Nobody I know believed that Trump would pivot in the opposite direction, becoming even more irresponsible and self-destructive after the conventions.
Did Trump and his campaign managers develop a strategy to attack a Gold Star mother and father? Could any presidential candidate who wants to be elected seem to publicly support Russian espionage against America, and take positions so extreme that a former acting CIA director calls him "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation"? Would any candidate who actually wants to win make comments about the Second Amendment and a political opponent so that the Secret Service is not happy, the same kind of comments that helped Harry Reid pulverize his Republican opponent into dust in his last reelection campaign?
I predict that Trump will never release his tax returns because there is something in those returns he intensely fears being revealed. Shall we speculate about what could be so devastating in his undisclosed tax returns? Is it not possible, possibly even likely, that he might dread the thought, for similar reasons, of filing his financial disclosure papers if he is elected president?
There has been some speculation in GOP circles about whether Trump might drop out of the campaign. This is possible, but I doubt it. The more likely scenario, if Trump does not want to be elected president, is that he will keep saying and doing things that any freshman political science student in college would know will doom his candidacy, and that after he loses a potential landslide to Hillary Clinton, will shout from the rooftops: "I was robbed!"
I am not saying that I believe Donald Trump is trying to throw the election to Hillary Clinton, but I am saying this is a prospect that is now worth seriously considering if the endless series of Trump blunders and gaffes continues.
For many years Trump, has heaped high praise on both Bill and Hillary Clinton throughout their tenures at every major office they have held since the 1992 campaign. I also noted that Trump has offered praise and campaign donations that continued for many years to prominent liberals and Democratic leaders such as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
A year after my tongue-in-cheek column asking whether Trump is running as a plant to elect Hillary Clinton, I will now raise the possibility, much more seriously,that one way to explain Trump's repeatedly self-destructive behavior could be that deep down Trump does not want to win the election and is clumsily throwing the game.
I am not stating that I believe that Trump wants to lose to Clinton, but I am suggesting there is at least some possibility that this is the case.
Why might Trump, in theory, want to lose the election?
Perhaps Trump originally decided to run to get some publicity for his business, or satisfy his ego, but never expected he had a real chance to win. Perhaps it suddenly dawned on Trump that he did have some chance to win, and was petrified at the thought of filing the detailed financial disclosures that presidents are required by law to file, for the same reason he is hiding his tax returns and which, I predict, he will never willfully release. Perhaps Trump suddenly realized he did not really want his finger on the nuclear button. Perhaps he just concluded that he did want to do the work that the presidency requires.
Think about it. If a candidate genuinely wants to become president, would he repeatedly insult the giant wave of Hispanic voters? Would he insult veterans who were heroic prisoners of war by saying that he "like
If a candidate actually wants to become president, would he and his advisers plan a strategy that includes praising the mass-murdering communist dictator of North Korea? Which voters did Trump believe he would win with that one? If a candidate truly wants to become president, would he and his foreign policy advisors plan a strategy that repeatedly praises Vladimir Putin, the strongman dictator of Russia, and say he is not sure he would defend Europe nations from a Russian invasion? Does Trump believe there is a pro-Putin vote in America?
Or, as Trump often says, perhaps there is something happening here. Some people might say he does these things because he wants to lose the election and is throwing the game to Clinton.
I have been to many rodeos in national politics, and literally every single major player in politics that I know expected Trump to "pivot" after the conventions to appear to take more responsible positions and say fewer irresponsible and self-destructive things.
Republicans believed Trump would pivot with hope; Democrats believed he would pivot with dread.
Nobody I know believed that Trump would pivot in the opposite direction, becoming even more irresponsible and self-destructive after the conventions.
Did Trump and his campaign managers develop a strategy to attack a Gold Star mother and father? Could any presidential candidate who wants to be elected seem to publicly support Russian espionage against America, and take positions so extreme that a former acting CIA director calls him "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation"? Would any candidate who actually wants to win make comments about the Second Amendment and a political opponent so that the Secret Service is not happy, the same kind of comments that helped Harry Reid pulverize his Republican opponent into dust in his last reelection campaign?
I predict that Trump will never release his tax returns because there is something in those returns he intensely fears being revealed. Shall we speculate about what could be so devastating in his undisclosed tax returns? Is it not possible, possibly even likely, that he might dread the thought, for similar reasons, of filing his financial disclosure papers if he is elected president?
There has been some speculation in GOP circles about whether Trump might drop out of the campaign. This is possible, but I doubt it. The more likely scenario, if Trump does not want to be elected president, is that he will keep saying and doing things that any freshman political science student in college would know will doom his candidacy, and that after he loses a potential landslide to Hillary Clinton, will shout from the rooftops: "I was robbed!"
I am not saying that I believe Donald Trump is trying to throw the election to Hillary Clinton, but I am saying this is a prospect that is now worth seriously considering if the endless series of Trump blunders and gaffes continues.
Trump has been playing the media with his supposed presidential ambitions for years, but it was clear then that it was just The Donald doing what he does best – promoting himself. So why now has he suddenly turned “serious”? I give that word scare quotes because 1) Serious is not a word one associates with a clown, and 2) It’s not at all clear that, for all his megalomania, he really thinks he can win the White House. He may be a lunatic but he’s far from stupid.
And so the question jumps out at us: Why now?
Although I have no concrete proof of my theory, there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. His ties to the Clintons, his past pronouncements which are in such blatant contradiction to his current fulminations, and the cries of joy from the Clintonian gallery and the media (or do I repeat myself) all point to a single conclusion: the Trump campaign is a Democratic wrecking operation aimed straight at the GOP’s base.
Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements – the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric – sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.
Now I realize this is a “conspiracy theory,” and, as we all know, there are no conspiracies in politics. In that noble profession, everything is completely aboveboard and on the level – right?
Like hell it is.
If this becomes the case then all is lost America as The Deep State's control is more complete than anyone could have imagined.And so the question jumps out at us: Why now?
Although I have no concrete proof of my theory, there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. His ties to the Clintons, his past pronouncements which are in such blatant contradiction to his current fulminations, and the cries of joy from the Clintonian gallery and the media (or do I repeat myself) all point to a single conclusion: the Trump campaign is a Democratic wrecking operation aimed straight at the GOP’s base.
Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements – the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric – sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.
Now I realize this is a “conspiracy theory,” and, as we all know, there are no conspiracies in politics. In that noble profession, everything is completely aboveboard and on the level – right?
Like hell it is.
Bill and trump met prior to him announcing.. He's a plant.. Going in their main goal was making a mockery of GOP.. To their surprise he actually got the nomination.. now it's full blown tank mode.. These guys have no shame making it blatantly obvious to anybody paying attention..
[h=1]Donald Trump talked politics with Bill Clinton weeks before launching 2016 bid[/h]Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.
Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat.
The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.
The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.
Trump took the call from his office in Trump Tower in New York, according to the four allies, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The call came as Trump was making a final decision about whether to run, and he was candid about his political ambitions and his potential interest in seeking the White House during the talk, these allies said.
The 42nd president listened intently and then analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the GOP base, the Trump allies said.
The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.
One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation.
Clinton aides declined to speak on the record about the call, saying the conversation was personal.
“Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”
One Trump adviser said Clinton called Trump, but the adviser did not provide specifics about how the call came about.
[h=3]What not to say if you're running for president: GOP debate fails[/h]
Play Video2:09
The Fix's Chris Cillizza revisits the 2012 Republican debates and some of its most "oops" moments. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)
People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.
At the time, Trump was touting a “foolproof” but undisclosed plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists and ramping up his presence on the airwaves, including interviews where he was asked about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. He entered the race June 16.
Neither side would provide an exact date for the call, but both Bill Clinton’s office and a person close to Trump described it as “late May.”
Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, declined to comment. The campaign of Hillary Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump is a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005. Since Trump entered the presidential race, however, he and Hillary Clinton have increasingly traded barbs.
She has condemned Trump’s racially charged remarks about Mexican immigrants and tut-tutted about his remark that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not a war hero.
“Donald Trump. Finally, a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine,” Clinton joked at a Democratic dinner in Arkansas in July. “But there’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and families, and now the insults he has directed at a genuine war hero, Sen. John McCain.”
That was a rare instance in which Clinton mentioned Trump by name. Also in July, before a largely Hispanic audience, Clinton had this to say:
“I have just one word for Mr. Trump. Basta!”
In June, she criticized Trump, without using his name, over his references to Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals during his June campaign launch speech.
“A recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable,” Clinton said in an interview with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston.
Clinton demurred when asked to specify to whom she was referring. Instead, she has frequently sought to tie Trump’s views to the broader GOP field.
“I think he is emblematic,” she said. “I want people to understand it’s not about him — it’s about everybody.”
Clinton has reserved her sharpest attacks for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates she has called out by name for their policies on immigration, abortion and other issues.
For his part, Trump said little about Clinton until recent weeks.
“Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina,” Trump wrote in a post on Instagram, following that interview. “This is why politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble.”
And on Wednesday, Trump wrote in a Twitter message: “Do you notice that Hillary spews out Jeb’s name as often as possible in order to give him status? She knows Trump is her worst nightmare.”
That’s a long way from the cordial, even cozy, relationship between the two when Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York and Trump was a constituent and supporter.
At Trump’s 2005 wedding, Hillary Clinton sat in the front row for the ceremony, and Bill Clinton joined her for festivities later. The Clintons were photographed laughing chummily with Trump and new wife Melania Knauss at the reception, with Bill Clinton clasping Trump’s shoulder.
Trump has also donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.
Tom Hamburger, Alice Crites and Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.
Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat.
The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.
The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.
Trump took the call from his office in Trump Tower in New York, according to the four allies, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The call came as Trump was making a final decision about whether to run, and he was candid about his political ambitions and his potential interest in seeking the White House during the talk, these allies said.
The 42nd president listened intently and then analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the GOP base, the Trump allies said.
The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.
One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation.
Clinton aides declined to speak on the record about the call, saying the conversation was personal.
“Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”
One Trump adviser said Clinton called Trump, but the adviser did not provide specifics about how the call came about.
[h=3]What not to say if you're running for president: GOP debate fails[/h]
Play Video2:09
The Fix's Chris Cillizza revisits the 2012 Republican debates and some of its most "oops" moments. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)
People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.
At the time, Trump was touting a “foolproof” but undisclosed plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists and ramping up his presence on the airwaves, including interviews where he was asked about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. He entered the race June 16.
Neither side would provide an exact date for the call, but both Bill Clinton’s office and a person close to Trump described it as “late May.”
Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, declined to comment. The campaign of Hillary Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump is a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005. Since Trump entered the presidential race, however, he and Hillary Clinton have increasingly traded barbs.
She has condemned Trump’s racially charged remarks about Mexican immigrants and tut-tutted about his remark that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not a war hero.
“Donald Trump. Finally, a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine,” Clinton joked at a Democratic dinner in Arkansas in July. “But there’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and families, and now the insults he has directed at a genuine war hero, Sen. John McCain.”
That was a rare instance in which Clinton mentioned Trump by name. Also in July, before a largely Hispanic audience, Clinton had this to say:
“I have just one word for Mr. Trump. Basta!”
In June, she criticized Trump, without using his name, over his references to Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals during his June campaign launch speech.
“A recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable,” Clinton said in an interview with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston.
Clinton demurred when asked to specify to whom she was referring. Instead, she has frequently sought to tie Trump’s views to the broader GOP field.
“I think he is emblematic,” she said. “I want people to understand it’s not about him — it’s about everybody.”
Clinton has reserved her sharpest attacks for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates she has called out by name for their policies on immigration, abortion and other issues.
For his part, Trump said little about Clinton until recent weeks.
“Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina,” Trump wrote in a post on Instagram, following that interview. “This is why politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble.”
And on Wednesday, Trump wrote in a Twitter message: “Do you notice that Hillary spews out Jeb’s name as often as possible in order to give him status? She knows Trump is her worst nightmare.”
That’s a long way from the cordial, even cozy, relationship between the two when Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York and Trump was a constituent and supporter.
At Trump’s 2005 wedding, Hillary Clinton sat in the front row for the ceremony, and Bill Clinton joined her for festivities later. The Clintons were photographed laughing chummily with Trump and new wife Melania Knauss at the reception, with Bill Clinton clasping Trump’s shoulder.
Trump has also donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.
Tom Hamburger, Alice Crites and Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.
I doubt Trump would take a dive like that, he is an egomaniac. He probably just figured he would run, rack up delegates, come in 2nd or 3rd and then grift off of that for the rest of his life. What he didn't realize was how good he was at dominating the primary news cycle and eventually he won, now he is just keeping it going.
I get why all the dots connect, I just don't see it. It makes sense but just feels too implausible they could tank an election like that. Him and Bill probably are friends though, the two daughters are really close as well.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...s-trump-deliberately-throwing-the-election-to
This a decent read on it.
I get why all the dots connect, I just don't see it. It makes sense but just feels too implausible they could tank an election like that. Him and Bill probably are friends though, the two daughters are really close as well.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...s-trump-deliberately-throwing-the-election-to
This a decent read on it.
It doesn't matter what your strategic plan is. People often believe that they are in control right up until it all goes pear shaped.
I seriously doubt that Nigel Farage genuinely believed he could win, he declared Brexit as a loser on the night of the count, but the campaign became a self-fulfilling prophesy which ran itself in the end.
Sometimes it's not about the candidates, it's about being in the right place at the right time and having the kind of policies people want.
I seriously doubt that Nigel Farage genuinely believed he could win, he declared Brexit as a loser on the night of the count, but the campaign became a self-fulfilling prophesy which ran itself in the end.
Sometimes it's not about the candidates, it's about being in the right place at the right time and having the kind of policies people want.
Being in the right place at right time with RIGHT POLICIES.. Trump for potus and British breaking out of euro are COMPLETELY different animals... Please Don't compare... I'm anti establishment.. I don't support trump and will vote libertarian.. I would have voted British independence of i were British.. Trump isn't the savior to end the status quo he's just not... He an ass clown there to make a mockery of the gop with the us changing demographics ... You can't win with just pissed off low IQ white vote anymore... Trump not only is tanking election but setting back progress of people who "get it" on the right as far as the one party monstrosity we've become..
there are some of people in low ranks of us political system who "get it" as far as the one party system we've become .. One that comes to mind besides obviously Ron Paul and his son to some extent is Thomas massie.. More like minded people are beginning to get fed up and get involved in politics it's a process..
trump please ... Just a false flag.. Clear as day...
there are some of people in low ranks of us political system who "get it" as far as the one party system we've become .. One that comes to mind besides obviously Ron Paul and his son to some extent is Thomas massie.. More like minded people are beginning to get fed up and get involved in politics it's a process..
trump please ... Just a false flag.. Clear as day...
It is funny the stark contrast in talk about economic issues by politicians and the financial media's discussion of the subject.
It isn't like the fed policy is swept under the rug or anything, CNBC covers it all the time. They talk about it for hours on end, headlines on their site about it everyday. The whole economy pretty much runs on Janet Yellen's words now.
And yet the candidates just won't ever touch the subject.
Big reason is the candidates probably do know that any attempt to fix the issue is gonna cause big short-term problems. And the other being most Americans just wouldn't even understand it.
Someone like Rand I don't think even talked about it much when he was running.
It isn't like the fed policy is swept under the rug or anything, CNBC covers it all the time. They talk about it for hours on end, headlines on their site about it everyday. The whole economy pretty much runs on Janet Yellen's words now.
And yet the candidates just won't ever touch the subject.
Big reason is the candidates probably do know that any attempt to fix the issue is gonna cause big short-term problems. And the other being most Americans just wouldn't even understand it.
Someone like Rand I don't think even talked about it much when he was running.
[h=1]Generation Screwed Fights Back[/h]Submitted by Pieter Diekmeyer of SprottMoney
Generation Screwed Fights Back: Investment Implications
Numerous data points suggest that Western youth are increasingly disenfranchised, mal-educated and in debt. How that will affect investment outlooks is unclear. The good news is that some Millennials – in Canada of all places – are starting to fight back.
So says Aaron Gunn, executive director of Generation Screwed, a movement sponsored by the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. The group will be conducting its annual retreat of volunteer student coordinators later this month in Quebec City.
There they will upgrade their strategic planning, team building, and activism skills, which they can bring back to campuses across the country to raise awareness of critical issues, such as government debts, unfunded liabilities, and unfavorable demographics facing today’s young.
“We call ourselves “Generation Screwed” because governments are spending money but leaving the bills behind for the young to pay,” says Gunn. “Apathy is our biggest challenge. Many youth are so burdened with the demands of getting a start in life, they are unaware of the lousy hand they are being dealt.”
The key driver of Generation Screwed’s popularity is the country’s rising national debt, which according to the organization’s debt clock , now exceeds $600 billion. And that doesn’t include provincial and municipal obligations. Worse, according to Gunn, the federal government’s 2016 budget projects $99 billion in new borrowing during the coming four years.
Less sex, but "screwed" in so many ways
“Generation Screwed” seems like an odd name for a generation which, according to a recent Washington Post article, is having less sex than previous generations. That said, the movement Gunn leads is particularly timely because Millennials are – to the use the CTF’s term – being “screwed” in so many ways.
The average U.S. student debt is now USD $27,000 - $1.2 trillion overall, according to the Economist Magazine .
Worse, due to the power of academic interest groups, teachers’ unions, and the politically correctness movements, students’ education is increasingly disconnected from reality and poorly adapted to the job market. Most students learn essentially nothing about money management, for example: one of the most important life skills.
Upon graduation, students enter what Donald Trump calls a “rigged” economy, where older workers are entitled to union, government, academic, and other jobs with benefits that are protected by a slew of credentialism strategies. The young get stuck with unpaid internships, work part-time, or do contract work.
Given their poor financial, employment and educational circumstances, not surprisingly, more than half of 18-34 year olds live with their parents, according to Pew Research .
Three quarters of declining productivity: a “new normal,” secular stagnation … or decline?
Lack of new blood in many protected sectors, ranging from governments, “too big to fail” banks, and the automotive industry, will almost certainly hit productivity. In fact, that may be happening already. Recent U.S. GDP data show that productivity fell for a third straight quarter in Q2, a first in more than three decades.
Bill Gross, a portfolio manager at Janus, has described today’s economy of rising trade barriers, household deleveraging and increased government regulations as a “new normal.” Larry Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary and others suggest the US economy is in a period of “secular stagnation.”
For long-term planners who worry about funding pension plans, managing government debt (nobody talks about paying it back anymore) or building careers, the stakes are high. That’s because things are likely far worse than even Gross and Summers, both of whom are restricted in what they can say due to the institutions they represent, will admit.
According to a range of researchers - including Laurence Kotlikoff, John Williams of Shadow Statistics, and the Fraser Institute, - the United States and Canadian governments regularly use massaged data and off balance sheet liabilities, to paint a brighter picture than actually exits.
No sympathy from governments
Gunn and Generation Screwed remain undeterred. This despite the long odds, and tough opponents – particularly seniors’ groups lined up against them (in the United States, the powerful American Association of Retired People lobby group, for example, will stop at nothing to protect members’ existing entitlements – the country’s youth are an afterthought).
Nor are Millennials likely to get much sympathy from governments, which increasingly resemble hospital geriatrics wards. The average age of a U.S. Congressman is 61. That of a Canadian Senator is 65. The average age of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice will be 75 by the end of the current U.S. Presidential cycle.
“I know the odds are long,” says Gunn. “But changing mentalities is a slow process. We just keep focused on doing it one person at a time.”
Generation Screwed Fights Back: Investment Implications
Numerous data points suggest that Western youth are increasingly disenfranchised, mal-educated and in debt. How that will affect investment outlooks is unclear. The good news is that some Millennials – in Canada of all places – are starting to fight back.
So says Aaron Gunn, executive director of Generation Screwed, a movement sponsored by the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. The group will be conducting its annual retreat of volunteer student coordinators later this month in Quebec City.
There they will upgrade their strategic planning, team building, and activism skills, which they can bring back to campuses across the country to raise awareness of critical issues, such as government debts, unfunded liabilities, and unfavorable demographics facing today’s young.
“We call ourselves “Generation Screwed” because governments are spending money but leaving the bills behind for the young to pay,” says Gunn. “Apathy is our biggest challenge. Many youth are so burdened with the demands of getting a start in life, they are unaware of the lousy hand they are being dealt.”
The key driver of Generation Screwed’s popularity is the country’s rising national debt, which according to the organization’s debt clock , now exceeds $600 billion. And that doesn’t include provincial and municipal obligations. Worse, according to Gunn, the federal government’s 2016 budget projects $99 billion in new borrowing during the coming four years.
Less sex, but "screwed" in so many ways
“Generation Screwed” seems like an odd name for a generation which, according to a recent Washington Post article, is having less sex than previous generations. That said, the movement Gunn leads is particularly timely because Millennials are – to the use the CTF’s term – being “screwed” in so many ways.
The average U.S. student debt is now USD $27,000 - $1.2 trillion overall, according to the Economist Magazine .
Worse, due to the power of academic interest groups, teachers’ unions, and the politically correctness movements, students’ education is increasingly disconnected from reality and poorly adapted to the job market. Most students learn essentially nothing about money management, for example: one of the most important life skills.
Upon graduation, students enter what Donald Trump calls a “rigged” economy, where older workers are entitled to union, government, academic, and other jobs with benefits that are protected by a slew of credentialism strategies. The young get stuck with unpaid internships, work part-time, or do contract work.
Given their poor financial, employment and educational circumstances, not surprisingly, more than half of 18-34 year olds live with their parents, according to Pew Research .
Three quarters of declining productivity: a “new normal,” secular stagnation … or decline?
Lack of new blood in many protected sectors, ranging from governments, “too big to fail” banks, and the automotive industry, will almost certainly hit productivity. In fact, that may be happening already. Recent U.S. GDP data show that productivity fell for a third straight quarter in Q2, a first in more than three decades.
Bill Gross, a portfolio manager at Janus, has described today’s economy of rising trade barriers, household deleveraging and increased government regulations as a “new normal.” Larry Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary and others suggest the US economy is in a period of “secular stagnation.”
For long-term planners who worry about funding pension plans, managing government debt (nobody talks about paying it back anymore) or building careers, the stakes are high. That’s because things are likely far worse than even Gross and Summers, both of whom are restricted in what they can say due to the institutions they represent, will admit.
According to a range of researchers - including Laurence Kotlikoff, John Williams of Shadow Statistics, and the Fraser Institute, - the United States and Canadian governments regularly use massaged data and off balance sheet liabilities, to paint a brighter picture than actually exits.
No sympathy from governments
Gunn and Generation Screwed remain undeterred. This despite the long odds, and tough opponents – particularly seniors’ groups lined up against them (in the United States, the powerful American Association of Retired People lobby group, for example, will stop at nothing to protect members’ existing entitlements – the country’s youth are an afterthought).
Nor are Millennials likely to get much sympathy from governments, which increasingly resemble hospital geriatrics wards. The average age of a U.S. Congressman is 61. That of a Canadian Senator is 65. The average age of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice will be 75 by the end of the current U.S. Presidential cycle.
“I know the odds are long,” says Gunn. “But changing mentalities is a slow process. We just keep focused on doing it one person at a time.”
The establishment is lucky most millennials are pretty dumb and reality TV/social media culture coincided with the getting F'd up the ass coming to a boiling point. Yeah they will rally around a Sanders type or do the OWS thing but they really don't know anything about why they're getting screwed.
-How bad SS and medicare are and how returns in the program gonna be way worse. All the pensions/public sector unions making state tuition more expensive and benefits not being as good now for these programs.
-All the fed stuff basically a transfer of wealth from young to old and fueling inequality
-Tuition being so expensive because of all the cronyism and admin budgets.
-All the NIMBYism stifling development creating housing shortage in major areas
-All the regulations keeping big boys in charge and stifling innovation, etc etc
I mean they're just so dumb if I were in a position of power I'd probably be tempted to screw them over too. Maybe the sociopaths not all to blame, lol.
-How bad SS and medicare are and how returns in the program gonna be way worse. All the pensions/public sector unions making state tuition more expensive and benefits not being as good now for these programs.
-All the fed stuff basically a transfer of wealth from young to old and fueling inequality
-Tuition being so expensive because of all the cronyism and admin budgets.
-All the NIMBYism stifling development creating housing shortage in major areas
-All the regulations keeping big boys in charge and stifling innovation, etc etc
I mean they're just so dumb if I were in a position of power I'd probably be tempted to screw them over too. Maybe the sociopaths not all to blame, lol.
