One theory about why the Beltway press keeps thrashing long-deceased steeds named “Clinton Email” and “Clinton Foundation” while ignoring the galloping scandals, gaffes and lies emanating near-daily from the Trump scampaign is the sheer volume of material on the Trump side. I can sympathize. I mean, who has time to unpack the implications of the Paul Manafort-Putin-Russian hacking thing, amirite?
In the interest of reducing the daunting array of promising lines of inquiry, here are just 10 questions some enterprising band of reporters could doggedly pursue until they get a response: (Note: Some are real questions that deserve answers because they are relevant to the candidate’s fitness for the job, and some are bullshit likability questions of the type Secretary Clinton must frequently answer.)
1. Why do a clear majority of Americans dislike and distrust you?
2. Why do only 1% of black voters support your candidacy?
3. Why do you think your support among Latino voters has dropped to just 19%?
4. You’ve said you can’t release your tax returns because they are being audited, which is not true: Richard Nixon released his returns under audit as a sitting president, and the IRS has stated there’s no restriction on releasing returns while undergoing an audit. You also have the option to release past returns that aren’t under audit but have refused to do that either. What are you hiding?
5. In 2011, you claimed you sent a team to Hawaii to investigate the president’s birth certificate and reported that “they cannot believe what they are finding,” yet you never released any findings. Did you lie about dispatching investigators? If not, who were they, and what did they find?
6. Did you bribe your supporter Pam Bondi, the attorney general of Florida, to drop the Trump University fraud investigation? Do you think it’s appropriate for a state’s attorney general to accept substantial campaign contributions from a person whose company she is investigating for fraud?
7. In response to your frequent criticism of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton campaign released the following statement:
Donald Trump has been falsely attacking the charity run by President Clinton when it is Trump’s own Foundation that has been caught in an actual pay-to-play scandal.
While the Clinton Foundation has received the highest ratings from independent charitable watchdogs, Donald Trump’s use of foundation money to donate to the Florida Attorney General actually broke the law. Worst of all, it appears the payment may have been intended to stave off an investigation into the sham Trump University that has ripped off unsuspecting students.
Donald Trump has no standing whatsoever to question the Clinton Foundation, which works to make AIDS and malaria drugs more accessible, when it’s been proven he uses his own foundation to launder illegal campaign donations.
Can you rebut those claims with specifics?
8. Why is a vicious, misogynistic workplace predator, Roger Ailes, serving as your advisor? Do you leave that pervert alone with female staffers or family members? Do you stand by the supportive remarks you made about Ailes in the wake of Gretchen Carlson’s accusations of sexual harassment?
9. In early August, you said your wife would hold a press conference to clear up questions that arose about her immigration status during a 1995 photo shoot in light of the fact that she previously claimed to have entered this country on a work visa in 1996. When will that press conference take place?
10. During your post-meeting press conference with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, you claimed that payment for the wall was not discussed, but Peña says he told you Mexico would not pay for the wall. Which of you is lying? If you’re telling the truth and payment was not discussed, why not? You say Mexico will pay for the wall at every rally, and this is widely known in Mexico. Were you too cowardly to bring it up to Peña’s face?
I can think of many more questions that should be pursued, such as the allegations that the Trump modeling agency exploited undocumented workers and that the Trump organization screwed unions and imported / abused Polish workers while building Trump Tower, etc. The list truly is dizzying. But you gotta start somewhere.
Indeed. The challenge was probably coming up with only the TOP ten.
I do like your number 8b. “Do you leave that pervert alone with female staffers or family members?”
I love this post. I’d also ask whether “having no experience” when applying for a job means ” a complete pass” when applying for that job. He’s running on his business experience. That means that’s relevant- indeed, it’s the ONLY thing we can look at.
This isn’t a good precedent. If they way to avoid scrutiny as a candidate is to start at “running for President” there’s going to be a goddammned disaster of epic proportions, because one of these unqualified and unexamined people will eventually win.
They know less about Donald Trump than people in a smaller less important race do about any random statehouse candidate who served on the school board and then was a county commissioner. There’s a non-zero chance he could win. When does the vetting begin? They’re about out of time.
The press can hardly be expected to focus on Trump while they have all the Clinton emails to read and reread and re-reread! C’mon! Her scandals are so much more tantalizing than his are. Why, they haven’t even had enough time to redredge Bill’s long list of terrible deeds!
I’m sooo tired of this unrelenting stream of nonsense. The press and pundits are doing their best to serve up the presidency for Trump. Any other Republican candidate would be way off in the rearview mirror by now, but Trump keeps getting the headlines, no matter what gibberish he’s spewing. And Hillary just keeps taking hits.
November seems like a hundred years away.
Details about his plans to change the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.
I think the only chance of getting “journalists” to answer these questions is to tweet one question at a time to individual journalists and copy others with big followings.
ETA I think question #6 is the one to try first.
Any suggestions about journalists to ask?
Historic first woman candidate vs binder full of misogynists. Ironic.
O/T but did any of our Midwestern Juicers feel the earthquake this morning?
Tsk tsk. Whose.
Guessing morning java hasn’t kicked in yet? ;)
Agree wholeheartedly that no real journalist would frame the questions in such an obviously sensationalist and bombastic manner. Nor ought they.
I want the details of his extreme vetting, what will it involve and who will be subject to it.
@NotMax: They ought to do their jobs. Or is that below their “professional standards” as well?
Since Donald Trump has no experience in government and is running solely on his private sector experience, shouldn’t Donald Trump have to release all information on his private sector activities? Because Hillary Clinton is a life-long government person she has to release all, while Trump releases nothing?
It’s ridiculous that they’ve set up a double standard that benefits the unqualified applicant. That’s insane. No one does this.
Donald Trump is actually worse on transparency than many private sector people would be- he has no record outside of Trump Enterprises. He hired and promoted himself. Is “President” the first job he actually had to apply for? Great! So all we know about him is what he tells us.
That’s a reason for MORE scrutiny, not less.
I wish I thought it was a plan. I think they don’t know what to do. Clinton is a traditional candidate with a long record-they know what to do there. They don’t know what to do with Trump. They’re flailing. They’re lost without a precedent.
@Kay: They are a joke. A high school newspaper would do a better job.
Mike in NC
Obvious answer to questions 1 through 10: IOKIYAR
Betty, Question # 7 is a repeat of # 6. How about a question regarding his numerous bankruptcies and his terrible record with failing businesses?
Some of those are useful questions but realistically #4 is the only one every journamilist should ask. Repeatedly and until he either answers or stops having interviews.
“Your taxes, sir. Where are they? The audit excuse does not work. Where are they?”
Can we all agree that when MSNBC invites Rev William Barber on a show that they give him his own segment to be interviewed? It is a complete waste to have him mixed on a panel segment. His time is too valuable and his message too important to be diluted by the other “balance” nitwits they always ask.
Remember how we didn’t “know” Obama and that was a huge risk for the homeland? Obama was a state senator and then a US Senator. They don’t know the first thing about Donald Trump. They don’t know what he owns and what he owes and who he owes. He is benefiting from being unqualified. That’s not how a hiring process is supposed to work.
First we were told there wouldn’t be any vetting because his GOP opponents were incompetent cowards, but don’t worry! The voters will find out! Political markets will work! The GOP base are morons- they found out nothing. Now it’s Labor Day and there’s STILL no vetting. When does it start? Is there an adult in the room, other than Hillary Clinton? It’s all up to her?
@Corner Stone: Yeah. If I had to pick one, that would be it. He should be hammered on it daily.
In addition to the media drive for a horse race, I think the main problem is the false balance the press tries to maintain. If you presented this list to a NY times reporter and asked them why they didn’t ask Trump and Trump’s surrogates these questions, they would respond with some variation of “Are you nuts? We’ve asked and reported on these very questions”. The issue is that none of these concerns gets covered in the depth and with the doggedness of Hillary’s emails. Hillary’s campaign has been rock solid and contrary to the 3 decades of sleaze tossed at her, Hillary seems to be a remarkably clean an corruption free candidate. All they’ve got is the emails and “why don’t people like Clinton” to go with. It’s gotten to the point that the press essentially has to print misleading headlines about and leads about the Clinton Foundation and then seed their articles with words like cloud, smoke, and fog. They hit these repetitively because it’s the only thing they have to “balance” out the gushing open sewer of the Trump campaign.
Slanted framing is not “their job.” There are sufficient alternative techniques to eliciting the same information without putting a very heavy thumb on the scale going in.
Regardless, DT will use misdirection or ultimatums in each case. We all know that. Reporting that he ducks, avoids or outright refuses to provide direct or substantive answers is the core story.
@SiubhanDuinne: USGS has it at 5.6 near Pawnee, OK.
Boy, I sure hope Hillary Clinton can save our bacon because this completely dysfunctional “vetting process” is the only thing standing between us and a reality tv show star as President. They better hope he doesn’t win. No one anywhere along the line did their job.
@NotMax: The core story is that the press has its thumb on the scale for Trump — or maybe it’s against Hillary. All the excuses you’re all providing as just that, nice excuses. Thank you for helping them destroy a Democrat.
I think its pretty damn important as to whether Melania Trump is in this country illegally. But Clinton’s people shouldn’t and can’t bring it up
I think there is only 1 question to ask; How do you intend to do- insert any Trump promise here? Build a wall and pay for it? Make America great again? How?
We’re going to find all that out in the debates. First we would find all that out in the primary. Then we would find all that out in the general. Now the promise is we’ll find that out in the debates. No we won’t. He’s not going to answer shit. Hillary Clinton will dutifully lay out her ten point plan and he’ll provide nothing. They spent 18 months on email hoping someone or something would intervene. No one has.
The only questions (in this list) of any significant value are 4, 6, 7, and maybe 8. The rest are just snark Numbers 1 through 3 are a waste of pixels — who cares what he thinks about why people hate him? He doesn’t. #5 is just more “How’d that birther shit work out for you, moron?”
9 is a shot at Melania — who cares? It’s not as if his (likely) double standard will change anyone’s mind. #10 — who cares what the answer is? Pena Nieto appears to be a fool (at best), and who really cares whether Trump is or isn’t lying about the meeting. It’s inside baseball.
NorthLeft12 @ 20 has an excellent one: Deadbeat Donnie got to where he is in this campaign in no small part because people believe he’s this awesome businessman — “Believe me!” — and it’s all bullshit. Why has the MSM not been hammering on this day and night? (No need to answer, I know why.) For all the crap Kerry put up with regarding the bullshit Swiftboating, you’d think the MSM could find some small amount of sack to pursue Deadbeat Donnie’s multitudinous business failures, cheats, and scandals.
No, I haven’t had my coffee, yet, and yes, I’m feeling especially curmudgeonly this morning. Maybe I’m channeling Cole.
ETA: Also, what Corner Stone said @ 22 (I think it was).
Iowa Old Lady
@weaselone: The email thing is so preposterous that we didn’t even get leaks from the Rs on the oversight committee when they alone had the FBI investigation notes. Now that we see the notes, we know why. There’s nothing there. Oh, except Colin Powell lied when he said HRC didn’t ask him about how he did email within two days of taking the SoS office.
@Wapiti: Recall this is the guy that not so subtly inferred that he’d diddle his own daughter; sexually appropriate behavior is not in his wheelhouse.
Well then it isn’t coming up. This is the laissez faire election. We’re waiting for political markets to vet Donald Trump. Any day now. If it’s a market failure and this dope blows up the world, well, that’s the way it goes.
@weaselone: Our own Tom’s correspondence with @MaggieNYT illustrates your point nicely.
The press in this country should be treated like the plague carrier they’ve become. I’m out of fairness, and kindness, and all those things that supposedly makes one “superior” to the enemy. Feeling “better than our foes” is a damn poor result when the country is bleeding out through a thousand cuts.
@Betty Cracker: I thought Tom didn’t reveal his NYT contact.
“Mr. Trump: WHAT ARE YOU HIDING, SIR?”
Use that about his taxes, his bankruptcies, his Putin obeisance, his deadbeat-ness, his general pattern of lying, and a host of others.
Every fucking day.
Don’t even need to make shit up, he’s a “target-rich environment” for shady dealings, lies, anti-American behavior.
@Emma & @geg6: I urge y’all to avoid Booman’s place this morning. I’m seriously considering deleting my bookmark — his comments section has long been a cesspool of deluded conspiracy theorists and addled cranks. They seem to be rubbing off on him.
@SFAW: You’ve mistaken Balloon Juice for the Columbia Journalism Review. More coffee — stat!
False equivalence is no argument. Criticizing imagined queries to Trump in no possible way translates to supporting hatchet jobs on HRC.
Having worked as a professional journalist for a time (granted, ages ago), know full well how to season questions and steer an interview. And none of the 10 questions, as written, makes the grade.
Perhaps he was telling the truth. What they found was not believable.
@Betty Cracker: Yes. I noted that at the end of the last thread. He used to be one of my go-to bloggers.
I’m old enough to remember when the GOP delegates were tasked with due diligence. Remember that? The delegates would put the brakes on. After that we were relying on Paul Ryan’s patriotism. Ooops! No help there!
@Betty Cracker: I ignore most “progressive” sites these days. Don’t have the patience.
@Emma: Kos front pages seem OK. Don’t know about the community.
@NotMax: I.Don’t.Care. Unless you can use your professional mojo to turn them into “real journalist” questions, I.Don’t.Care. Professional hauteur is a poor response to “help me, I’m bleeding.”
@Baud: It’s on Twitter.
@Kay: I imagine they have simply given up on it, considering the caliber of candidate they are attracting now.
@Betty Cracker: Thx.
@Baud: Kos fluctuates. IMO, there’s a good solid group of practical Democrats still working out of it.
Why in the world do so many more latinos support Trump than blacks?
I join Ms. Cracker. Correct.
I think a more interesting question is how the fuck did we get here? By here, I mean, we have a person dangerously unqualified that has a punchers chance (it’ll take something dramatic, a terrorist incident, something to shock the system) of being elected. That’s crazy.
This all isn’t all on Republicans; our side deserves some blame, too. Both candidates are disliked at staggering levels (which gives the punchers chance above). Something is fundamentally wrong here.
ETA: FWIW, I still don’t think Trump really wants to be President and will find a way to take the dive at the end.
I didn’t think it could get worse, but now the Trump children are running for President. What I am supposed to take from that ad that doesn’t even include their father? Not only do we have the risk of one completely opaque and unqualified person, we also get his children as President? People who have ALSO never applied for a job?
Let’s just elect the lady behind the counter at the dry cleaners. I know more about her.
@Hurling Dervish: My culture still has a lot of fear of gay cooties. And too many anti-abortion Catholics.
True, but it does equate to excoriating BronyCon attendees for poor horsemanship.
@Emma: Wonkette is probably the best non-BJ site I follow. Kevin Drum has been pretty good on the media bias issue, and so has Matt Yglesius. Vox is generally good, but a bit hit or miss at times.
@The Dangerman: Wait, aren’t you not even voting for Hillary? Or am I confusing you with someone else?
@The Dangerman: Our candidate is disliked because a big group of wealthy conservatives, aided and abetted by our press, have been hammering at her and her husband for 30 years.
Coffee or no, I’ll still be curmudgeonly.
@Emma: Someone said most of her high dislike come from the fact that conservatives really hate her. I haven’t looked into it because I don’t care about feefees, only votes.
Not to be asked in a snarky way, if possible, but the last President who was elected to the office without ANY prior political experience was Dwight D. Eisenhower. One of his qualifications was his generalship in World War II, and his actions were public and scrutinized in real time. He demonstrated real leadership and the ability to weigh competing interests and achieve important goals. How, exactly, does Donald Trump compare to Dwight D. Eisenhower? What kind of extraordinary private leadership has he demonstrated that would put him in the same category as our last non-politician president?
@Nora: He’s a white fascist in a country that’s growing increasingly diverse. That’s the only leadership quality he needs.
Would that it were so. My (perhaps completely fucking wrong) opinion is that he sees the Presidency as yet another shiny object he wants, and he always goes after his shiny objects until the end. Then he gets bored, and pulls a Palin. Well, no, not exactly a Palin — she quits completely, but he just farms out the work to some stooge, and keeps his name out front.
Yes, brainwashing by emmessem.
If she violated her visa restrictions it is a pretty big deal. According to Trump’s immigration rhetoric it is an offense that should get an immigrant jailed and deported.
That would be correct; I’m in deeeeeeep blue CA, so, no, I’m not voting for Hillary*
Doesn’t mean I want Trump to win.
*actually, unless the absentee’s come out really early, I’m not voting for anyone as I’m on the road.
10 is too many. I would focus on 4 and 6.
In particular, 6 has much to offer. Reminds folks of Trump U, plays well in the key state of Florida, is easy to understand and stinks to high heaven.
It looks like a cascading sequence of failures to me- they were all waiting for someone else to be the grownup.
The checks are failing one by one. The primary was a check and then the delegates were a check and then the GOP leadership was a check. They all failed. That’s how big disasters happen- everything fails in sequence. He’s still going. If media aren’t a check then it is all up to Hillary Clinton and she’s not actually all-powerful. She can’t control it.
We used to joke about the GOP bringing down the country. That could actually happen, except replace country with “world”. I’m fatalistic about it, but if it happens we;ll look back and see the sequence. First the hurricane and then the the levy failed and then DHS failed….
My mother was a journalist for thirty years. With slight language changes, I’m pretty sure she’d have no problem with any of those questions. And I can’t even articulate what her disdain for the MSM would be if she was alive to see it. I remember well her commentary about the level of fail almost all media displayed from St. Ronnie unto the day she died in 2001. If she wasn’t already dead, 9/11 and the Iraq War run up coverage would have killed her.
“Successful” businessmen are the new Generals. I imagine that’s due in no small part to Reagan’s grift and its aftereffects, and the willingness of the wingnuts to believe government is Teh Evul.
@The Dangerman: I agree with your overall point. But, specifically, I disagree with this:
A terrorist attack in the US will not help Trump now. He’s has proven himself too erratic, egocentric, and ignorant in the other crises (Nice, Orlando, et al.) this election season that Americans won’t automatically turn to the Daddy Party this time.
@schrodinger’s cat: I would put it as: It now takes two years of vetting for Syrian refugees to be admitted to the US. What in your extreme vetting is not being done now?
@The Dangerman: then don’t talk about our side. You and I are not on the same side. I don’t care where you live.
We have the end stage of a long history of the press, by conviction or coercion, deciding the Democrats are the silly hippies and the Republicans are the grown ups.
And then all reality feedback was shut down.
And can you confirm that you have donated substantial amounts of money to the Minute Genitalia Coalition of Manhattan, of which you are a founding member? What member services are provided?
And old Cubans.
Well, if the pastel horseshoe fits…. ;)
Meanwhile, hunkering down for the swing by of Hurricane Lester today and tomorrow. Leading front of wind and showers began a couple of hours ago. Barometer falling.
@catclub: He is going to apply this extreme vetting to visitors too.
@Baud: The problem is that in our system, fee-fees often translates into votes. Conservatives have hated the Clintons for decades, for different reasons:
1. Elite conservatives (those who are served by the NYT): The Clintons are not OUR KIND. At least the Bushes had the right pedigree before they went Texan.
2. Rich conservatives : the proper function of government is to help us. How dare you try to help the moochers?
3. Redneck conservatives: who the hell do you think you are? You’re dirt like us, you think you can be president and stuff?
4. Racist conservatives: You’re trying to treat those people like their our equals!
5. Religious conservatives: How dare you try to help women be independent and equal!
There’s great overlap between those groups, and they have one thing in common. The press panders to them, especially to groups 1 and 2.
@schrodinger’s cat: Exactly. Trump didn’t mention any namby-pamby politically correct statute of limitations. Apply it in her case.
The problem. He could divorce her and get a newer version.
It’s the 21st century. We just live in it.
Perhaps, but I could see something – I probably shouldn’t try to guess what it could be – that shakes things up enough that Trump has that punchers chance.
@geg6: They’re still there, yeah. But they’re dying.
Code typo. Fix (no edit function).
Well, if the pastel horseshoe fits… ;)
Meanwhile, hunkering down for the swing by of Hurricane Lester today and tomorrow. Leading front of wind and showers began a couple of hours ago. Barometer falling.
Of course it would. All the Rethugs have to do is blame Obama, Trump would say “I’d be so much tougher on terrists than That Black Guy,” the MSM would dutifully give him tons of air time without any pushback (as long as they think they’ll get a pat on the head, there’s a good little lapdog), and the “independent” voters will shake their collective heads, and reluctantly vote for the strongman.
Or has the electorate gotten smart, and the MSM gotten backbone, in the last 24 hours, and I missed it?
That Paris doofus is a waste of airtime, like most Trump surrogates. And Joy did give the good Rev. his own segment so she atoned for that sin.
n+1) In your announcement speech you said that you buy politicians but that nobody can buy you. There are many reports that your businesses have close financial ties to Putin and his supporters in Russia. Important members of your campaign staff have close ties to Putin and his supporters. You have advocated closer ties to Putin and have advocated reneging on the US’s commitment to common-defense in NATO. Why isn’t that evidence that you are, in fact, bought by Putin? You said you would self-finance your campaign because you were so rich, but stopped doing so after you won the nomination. Why did you lie?
n+2) You have never held elective office. You have never had to compromise with other political factions that represent other voters to get things done. You have, instead, been surrounded by yes-men for your entire professional career. Can you tell us one example of a case when you were told you were wrong and changed your actions and approach in your professional career? What in your life illustrates how well you would work with others in the political sphere?
n+3) In your announcement speech, you said several times that our political leaders are “stupid”. The President has to work with other politicians that will disagree with him or her. The Congress has the powers of the Purse, the power to confirm your appointments, and the power of impeachment. The Courts decide what is legal and what isn’t. How do you think that you will be able to work with people that you have insulted? Are your insults just to entertain the public and the press?
n+4) In your announcement speech you called Bergdahl a traitor. How will you, as CiC, ensure that he is treated fairly by the military? How can anyone trust that your Department of Justice will treat accused people fairly?
n+5) In your announcement speech, you told a story about Ford. Ford said you were wrong. Why do you tell lies about things like this? Comments by the President have life-and-death implications. Does incidents like this show that you have some sort of psychosis, or are you just a pathological liar? Will you submit to a thorough, independent, mental health examination? (Yeah, that may be a teenie weenie bit over the top, but the issue is important.)
n+6) Why are you running for President? Is it just a scam to prop up your failing businesses? Nothing in your professional background indicates you have an interest in participating in politics. You realize that many of your proposals are either unconstitutional, or impossible, or economically disastrous, or far more expensive than you claim, or have insufficient political support to actually pass the Congress. Your campaign relies on free media, you have shown no interest in campaigning other than holding rallys which are almost exclusively white, you have an insignificant on-the-ground infrastructure, and you aren’t campaigning for others who might help pass your agenda. The national party has distanced itself from you. The electoral college map is almost impossibly against you. How do you actually think you can win?
And on and on.
And those are mainly just things from his announcement speech from over a year ago…
@Emma: The conservatives have never beaten either Clinton in any election since about 1982.
@Glennis: No, I doubt he sent anybody. He’d have to actually, you know,……….pay.
Well, we’re fucked then. They haven’t been grownups for at least a decade now, probably more.
Your five points remind me of Cyrano near the beginning.
Just a random “thought,” not meant to add value to the discussion.
@catclub: Yeah. I’m angry at the press right now, but Clinton’s team has been stellar so far, and I’m confident they can carry us home.
I stated here once – and in doing it once, it was a mistake, but it’s out there – why I won’t vote for Hillary.
Yeah, it’s funny how we still don’t “know” so much about Obama and Clinton after all these years, and yet Trump “has been in the spotlight for so long, we know him”. Funny how that works, every bit of minutia about the two is an excuse to raise a million questions, and yet information about the latter is old news, and there is no need to re-litigate his history.
Q: Donald, you have often said that if Ivanka was not your daughter, you would want to date her. Now that Tiffany is all grown up, which daughter do you would you take on a date, if they were not your daughters?
Q2: What were you thinking when you were groping Ivanka, before your acceptance speech at the RNC convention?
I don’t think it would. That was the narrative but that’s because they think Trump is “strong”. That “trustworthy” number they’re always dinging Clinton for? Trump isn’t trusted either.
Question #11: What did you put in Megyn Kelly’s drink?
@NotMax: Hurricane LESTER? Sounds more sinister than Hermine. Stay safe!
@catclub: So? That makes the ongoing harrassment ok? Look, I’m not in a gracious, forgiving, or in any way fastidious about definitions today. I don’t care that they don’t succeed. I care that they try.
Can you imagine if Chelsea Clinton ran an ad like the Trump children did, that implies we’re electing them to run something or other? This is dictatorship stuff. It’s not supposed to happen in developed countries. It’s mind blowing to me. The Trump family believe this will be like Trump Enterprises, and why wouldn’t they? That’s how it’s been treated.
Baud, if it makes you feel any better (not that I really care), I looked it up and ballots don’t get mailed out in time for me. I’m not voting for anyone (although the end date of my travels is a little unpredictable, so maybe I get back in time to collect a huge pile of mail waiting for me at the PO, but I seriously doubt it).
As others have said, #4 is a good question. Trump is running as a successful businessman. What we know or have heard is that he’s had 6 bankruptcies, his taxes have been under continuous audit for something like 15 years, and he’s facing fraud charges for Trump U as soon as the election is over. There’s nothing there that says success. Is he not releasing his taxes because he is much less successful than he claims?
It is pretty creepy. But the one that sends chills up my spine is Jared Kushner. I simply can’t process a supposedly devout Jew aligning himself with Breitbart and white supremacists. It’s not like Hillary is anti-Israel or anything. He blows my mind.
To be honest, Trump is, by our degraded standards, a “successful” businessman: he manages to get out with money, he dissolves the company with its debts, and he happily starts up another.
That is what passes for business these days.
Had to take care of something so I missed it. Will have to catch it later on the trons.
I did just see Dave Zirin get a whole segment, which I much prefer over the disjointed crap that is inevitable when you have any rwnj involved. I’ve gotten to where I either turn the TV off or at least change the channel when I see Hugh Hewitt or Andrea Mitchell on their air.
Trump’s lack of trustworthiness is immaterial to those voters who would switch from “Undecided” to “reluctant Trump voter.” If they had any fucking brain(s), they wouldn’t be Trump-curious in the first place; thus, lacking the requisite intelligence, they’re more susceptible to “I’m the only one who can save us from the
Mike in NC
@WereBear: Just as Mitt Romney was cast by the media as a successful businessman (who created thousands of jobs) when in reality he was/is a “vulture capitalist” who destroys companies and sells off their assets for profit.
@germy: There might be something to that idea, but it seems a little too convenient.
I think he wanted to keep his show on NBC while he ran for President. He was upset when they cancelled it.
I’m sure he would love to have a show of his own again, but I doubt he wants to do the actual work of building up a new network. Out in the real world, his name is toxic so it’s hard to believe that some sensible network would create a channel for him – who would advertise on it? Beck has the gold bugs and the disaster preppers locked up, AFAIK.
So the question remains in my mind, why did he run? I think it was just to punish JEB (and Marco) (and for that we can be grateful), but he stuck with it because he ended up winning. Beyond that, I dunno.
@Mike in NC: Exactly. In fact, a “successful” business these days destroys jobs; it is the lazy way to short-term profitability.
@WereBear: I don’t think it’s hippie vs. grownup this time, though. I think it’s the organic evolution of the press’s decision to be cynical and rate every candidate on “optics” and then wonder if the optics will have an effect on public opinion. The only things they talk about are showmanship and performance: how did/does Action A look, and how will it color voters’ impressions of the candidate who did it? It’s a horrendous model of journalism that results from its takeover by Gen X and Gen Y people who think they’re clever and that voters are stupid and emotional. The whole enterprise is based on believing that politics is all bullshit so let’s amuse ourselves seeing what bullshit the idiots are falling for today, and speculate about whether the candidates have a plan to advance or counteract the bullshit, and whether that plan will work.
@Emma: Yup. If I caught even a whiff of Bern BroProg Love on one of my go to blogs I stopped reading. Booman’s commenters are neither bright nor interesting, and his own posts lately which I occasionally scan have not been either. Now I won’t waste my time at all.
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
Hey, Betty, I saw you commenting over at Booman’s. You need to kick that fladem dude in the nards.
@SiubhanDuinne: To which I can only reply, “what earthquake?”
I think the media should ask him why he didn’t pay workers or suppliers. I think Clinton’s campaign should hammer that issue. It wont’ bother his the basest of his base but that angle might give the so called sacred “Independent” Trump Curious voters pause.
Link at #24.
Same here, Betty. I wrote a private email to Booman saying that in spite of being a fan and loyal member of his blog, I was cutting out for a while. When Bernie lost, lots of the Booman troops went completely berserk. Mention Hillary and the long knives come out.
What’s worse is that the tone there is mean, ugly, and hateful. The anti-Clintons willfully ignore the facts and embrace every hint of scandal or wrongdoing, real or not. They go into orbit with every post.
I’m outta there until cooler and wiser heads prevail.
Mr. Trump, you’ve promised to improve the US economy and help US-owned companies by doing what you did for your own businesses.
Do you recommend that US business owners borrow at high rates and shift financial risks to investors and stockholders? use bankruptcy court repeatedly as protection from lenders? use bankruptcy court to force bondholders to accept less money, and then acquire even more more debt? handle a troubled company by forming a new, public-traded company propped up by junk bonds and shifting ownership?
Would you advise US business owners to shift personal debt to their companies? make bank payments using loans from their own companies and relatives? use their own company to lend themselves money?
Do you believe that US companies should stay solvent and put equity into their own projects? invest in the US communities where they operate? refuse to pay local contractors and suppliers the contracted amount?
CNN sent people to investigate Obama’s grade school. Is there some reason they haven’t sent anyone to look at Trump’s business dealings overseas? What does he own? Who does he deal with?
Obama got 6 weeks of 24/7 play on the pastor of a church he once attended. Donald Trump is 70 years old. What was he doing the last 50 years?
I know more about Obama’s sister than I do the GOP nominee for President, and I knew it before Obama’s 08 election.
@schrodinger’s cat: He previously said his proposed restrictions on Muslims would apply to all Muslims – which would seem to include members of Congress…
He’s been on every side of dozens of policy questions in the last 14+ months. Were he to be elected, there’s no doubt that he would try to have a maximalist interpretation of his powers.
“Extreme Vetting of Democrats! – You can’t be too careful!!”
I’ve noticed Bob in Putinland has taken up residence there. I’m glad he’s found a place where he can post all the links to Russia Today and USUncut he wants and not get any pushback.
@Kathleen: BooMan is a sensible dood on many things, but he has let a few commenters turn the BT into a conspiracy haven. That’s unfortunate, not least because I really like (the old and crufty) software he uses there (Scoop).
He also writes occasionally on WaMo’s Political Animal. The commenters aren’t quite so insular there.
The first three questions are beating your wife questions and easily dodged. Otherwise pretty solid.
They consider themselves White.
Blacks are under no such delusion.
Dr. Ronnie James, D.O.
David Cay Johnston* wrote a book about Trump and had this helpful list last year:
Some hair-raising stuff in there.
* (who incidentally also writes some essential stuff on taxes and tax policy)
@SFAW: Well, there are a lot of liberals over at Booman’s place who are convinced that Hillary is truly the untrustworthy one and from the comments it seems that she damaged herself mightily with the FBI”s release of the emails.
Those damn emails
I read the posts, comment what I want, and then go. When it gets too much, I just read him over at Washington Monthly. Fewer crazies.
@Dr. Ronnie James, D.O.:
Turn over the taxes to David Cay Johnston. I would trust whatever conclusion he came to.
I always look for you! You’re a smart comment maker!
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: I shuda read your post before posting mine and its link. I also coulda predicted that the Clinton naysayers would come out in force when Booman posted that article of his. Problem is he really believes that this proves she’s untrustworthy and given any other GOP opponent she would be setting Democrats up for a sure loss.
My niece is at SMU and felt nothing, but that probably speaks to the intensity of her partying.
In their home countries, they probably are white and part of the ruling class or close to it, with ancestry going back to Spanish settlers, with very little intermingling with Natives or blacks.
They may not appreciate how they lose that privilege in the eyes of white Americans.
@The Dangerman: I’m sorta with Baud on this. Isn’t your right and duty to vote important to you? What about downballot candidates. Surely there are at least some of those who need your support?
I have zero sympathy for the idea that journalists are refusing to adequately vet Trump because it’s just sooooo haaaaard.
Clinton’s supposed scandals aren’t even that interesting or sexy, which is the usual reason why the press would be willing to put all that manpower into their investigations. Digging through thousands of pages of briefs and emails about state department and charity business has got to be boring as hell.
Trump on the other hand has got scandals that are actually really juicy. His campaign leads have been involved in sexual harassment and Russian shadiness. He’s hired illegal immigrants as models. He’s bankrupted casinos. He ran a bonafide scam. He may have bribed a state official. He may have ties to the mafia. His wife might be an illegal immigrant. None of that even touches Trump’s overt bigotry!
Yet we’re stuck getting multiple headlines on a daily basis about the Clinton Foundation and her damned email server. Not real scandals and boring as hell to boot.
The only conclusion that makes sense is that the national political press is deliberately trying to get Trump elected.
Ahem, the question as the tittle at the top of the post states was for Trump. From your comments on this blog I had not detected any signs of little dick syndrome, but who knows…..
Yeah, that’s great and all that, but that’s more-or-less unrelated to what I was talking about. The “trustworthiness” issue related to Trump, and whether people would move away from him in the event of a terrorist attack (or similar), because they don’t trust him. The BernieBros are not really part of that demographic.
Can you name the three branches of government? Do you know how the Supreme Court works? Do you know how a bill becomes a law? For the last one I’d accept Trump singing the “School House Rock” song about how a bill becomes a law.
You Lie-berals with your “gotcha” questions.
The man doesn’t even seem to have a middle grader’s grasp of how the U.S. Government was set up to work. I bet he doesn’t even realize that office of the presidency is supposed to be a coequal branch of the government and not a quasi dictatorship.
@Wapiti: 8c “if Aires were to harass Ivanka, would you support her decision to seek another campaign to support?”
*laughs* As if he even cares.
@Juju: “Vlad told me I should go for it.”
@amk: This, This, This. This is one of those “Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?” moments, the sole difference being this moment exceeds the boundaries of rational thought and measurements of time, seeming to stretch into a Gaia-damned eternity.