I've not yet found a clip of him giving a cogent policy talk.
It is not her machine. She is the front person but not the decision maker.Come now, as a lawyer (you are a lawyer, no?) you're surely aware that committing a crime and proving a crime was committed are two very different things. Since virtually everyone commits crimes it stretches belief to suggest Clinton and her 'machine' (in jay's phrase, I'm not at all sure what he means by it) are exceptions.
Finally, something we can agree about. NAFTA was a Bush I initiative carried out under Clinton. It is one of the more bi-partisan success stories of that decade. The balanced budget was another, but that was more confrontational.Also, why is NAFTA bad, how does it affect the USA (negatively, positively, both?), why and how would the proposed changes benefit the US?
That does not mean most centrists are open border. That is a very different issue. I happen to be both.I think most centrists are pro-trade. And I think that most centrists are pro 'help those displaced by trade'. We tend to fall for the "let's subsidize them!" trap, 'cause it's easy. But the solutions for those displaced by trade, otherwise, need cross-aisle support. You can go Right. You can go Left. Both can work. But there's a reason why we fall for "Let's subsidize them!" instead.
Well, I am demanding explanations from the Donald, who says NAFTA is ‘a disaster’.Finally, something we can agree about. NAFTA was a Bush I initiative carried out under Clinton. It is one of the more bi-partisan success stories of that decade. The balanced budget was another, but that was more confrontational.
It is not her machine. She is the front person but not the decision maker.
Please differentiate criminal acts from felonies. Most people will violate a law occasionally. Most people do not commit felonies. IMO Hillary (and Bill) Clinton have committed multiple felonies and evaded prosecution. Comparisons to Nixon are unfair. Nixon could only dream of the treatment the FBI gave Hillary.
Watch this one. Try to figure out if Wolf is playing him, or if Trump is fooling Wolf into "rabbit holing" him.
he does not want to stay on any one coherent subject, because his knowledge is too shallow. He is so lacking on every substantive topic, that he literally has no choice but to bounce from one rambling word salad to the next..
I've not yet found a clip of him giving a cogent policy talk.
That does not mean most centrists are open border. That is a very different issue. I happen to be both.
J
Okay, so it goes to the State Supreme Courts first, thanks.A 4-4 decision leaves the lower court decision in place. Interestingly, in 2000 that would have meant the Florida Supreme Court decision to keep the recount going would have remained in place, and the outcome may have been different.
Good point.A saving grace might be that you wouldn't think Roberts or Kennedy would really be that keen on Trump. This election probably splits the court along lines which aren't purely partisan.
I'd like to offer 3) carbon copies of mainstream Republican policy in areas where he doesn't care one way or the other.This has been one to me maddening dimension of Trump and the coverage of Trump. All he has as policies are really 1) descriptions of a problem and/or 2) slogans.
"Clinton machine" is a Trump campaign term designed to dehumanise the Clinton campaign. Notice how the Trump campaign is always a "movement" in contrast. A machine is controlled, i.e. top-down. A movement is bottom-up.Come now, as a lawyer (you are a lawyer, no?) you're surely aware that committing a crime and proving a crime was committed are two very different things. Since virtually everyone commits crimes it stretches belief to suggest Clinton and her 'machine' (in jay's phrase, I'm not at all sure what he means by it) are exceptions.
I think it's Clinton with the gaffes here even, considering her husbands comments on the ACA.It might work. It's a good horse to ride. He might make some gaffes that prevent it from being a real swing opportunity for him.
The general Trump narrative on trade agreements is that they are bad because they allowed for US manufacturing jobs to be replaced by foreign competition. Trump is different from most free trade critics in that he apparently believes this is not a fundamental flaw of free trade agreements themselves, instead he thinks that the treaties currently in place are "bad deals" where politicians were screwed over by foreign governments, although I'm not sure whether he mainly contends it is because of incompetence or some form of globalist corruption.Also, why is NAFTA bad, how does it affect the USA (negatively, positively, both?), why and how would the proposed changes benefit the US?
I am two minutes into it. I am 100% convinced so far that Trump wants to talk about birtherism, and so does Blitzer. More importantly, Trump wants to complain about media bias against him and push that narrative, as its central to his campaign. He has no desire to talk about trade, and its obvious from the first words that come out of his mouth.I know it makes a good story, a good narrative. But we have to remember that the interviewers are smarter than him. And he's an entertaining clown.
Watch this one. Try to figure out if Wolf is playing him, or if Trump is fooling Wolf into "rabbit holing" him.
No Hillary is my champion. And when this interview was done President Obama was my champion. And you have CNN mixed up with MSNBC. CNN is seen as more of the middle ground network, although I think they lean left, and I think most conservatives would agree. MSNBC and FOX News are the pure-partisan networks, Democrat and Republican, respectively. I'll let it slide though, cause I know you are in Greece^Blitzer is your champion, then?
Btw, media people are not supposed to be on the same basis as a politician, given they are not relying on actual votes from the public.
Besides, isn't it known since forever than Cnn is just an arm of the dem party in the manner Fox is the rep one? Difference seems to be in number of viewers. Both channels news appear to be jokes.
Come now, as a lawyer (you are a lawyer, no?) you're surely aware that committing a crime and proving a crime was committed are two very different things. Since virtually everyone commits crimes it stretches belief to suggest Clinton and her 'machine' (in jay's phrase, I'm not at all sure what he means by it) are exceptions.
Please differentiate criminal acts from felonies. Most people will violate a law occasionally. Most people do not commit felonies. IMO Hillary (and Bill) Clinton have committed multiple felonies and evaded prosecution. Comparisons to Nixon are unfair. Nixon could only dream of the treatment the FBI gave Hillary.
J
Okay, so it goes to the State Supreme Courts first, thanks.
I've noticed this before too. I watched the Youtube of his rally in West Virginia, just after his opponents had dropped out and he had effectively clinched the nomination. Of course he was making a point to give his pro-coal and anti-environmental spiel, but he said that hairspray just wasn't the way it used to be now that they got rid of CFCs, made a bizarre statement about how CFCs can't get from his penthouse into the atmosphere, and so on. The thing is that CFCs were eliminated from consumer products in the early-to-mid 1990s and replaced mostly with HFCs, which have identical properties except not depleting the ozone layer (they still cause global warming though; see the recent Kigali agreement).3) This is a bit more out there, but I think it's consistent with other confounding things Trump is obsessed with. NAFTA is from the 90s. For some reason, Trump's political outlook seems to be stuck in the late 80s and 90s. It's not just NAFTA, he is also acting as if Japan is a threatening competitor to the US like it's still the 80s, not to mention his outdated references to Rosie O'Donnell and so on.
But why? Why be maddened by it? Are you upset because you think his antics are fooling people into supporting him? Do you feel that his tactics are working? They're not. He's losing...bigly and he's gonna lose, and hopefully lose by a YUUGE margin, so all his nonsense is going to be rejected by the electorate as it should. In a way Gori, you're kinda like the guy who's team is winning the Superbowl by 12 points getting mad at the other team's QB for throwing yet another interceptionI can fully understand this and still be maddened by it.
There was one point in the video towards the end where I did think Trump was getting tired of getting hammered on birtherism and was trying to switch to China... but then, literally immediately as he finished his "I don't talk bitherism with Romney, I talk China and trade with him" spiel... he then went back to "but I know you (accusing CNN and Blitzer again) want to talk about birtherism cause that what gets ratings" or something along those lines. And he literally does that every time he hints at pivoting, he ends his remark by signaling that he wants to stay on bitherism and media bias.Even 7:20? I realize now how the Dems outplayed the Republicans. By letting Birtherism infect the Tea Party so fully, and then releasing the certificate when they did, they were able to really demoralize the Center Right. It's good politics. Not sure if it's good governance.
But why? Why be maddened by it? Are you upset because you think his antics are fooling people into supporting him? Do you feel that his tactics are working? They're not. He's losing...bigly and he's gonna lose, and hopefully lose by a YUUGE margin, so all his nonsense is going to be rejected by the electorate as it should. In a way Gori, you're kinda like the guy who's team is winning the Superbowl by 12 points getting mad at the other team's QB for throwing yet another interception