TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 29 of 170
You forgot the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/06/17/the-time-
jimmy-carter-asked-donald-trump-for-5-million/
Originally posted by second:
Trump could have said in his acceptance speech: “Unpopular TV shows get canceled. If I become unpopular as President, if I don’t keep my promises, if illegals are not all deported and I do mean all illegals, if factory jobs continue to decrease, I pledge that you can cancel me!” Trump did not commit himself to either success or resignation. He could have easily made that pledge last night when it really would have counted as an unbreakable promise from Trump to America.
Trump would be following his book The Art of the Deal: Deliver the Goods
You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.
I think of Jimmy Carter. After he lost the election to Ronald Reagan, Carter came to see me in my office. He told me he was seeking contributions to the Jimmy Carter Library. I asked how much he had in mind. And he said, “Donald, I would be very appreciative if you contributed five million dollars.”
I was dumbfounded. I didn’t even answer him.
But that experience also taught me something. Until then, I’d never understood how Jimmy Carter became president. The answer is that as poorly qualified as he was for the job, Jimmy Carter had the nerve, the guts, the balls, to ask for something extraordinary. That ability above all helped him get elected president. But then, of course, the American people caught on pretty quickly that Carter couldn’t do the job, and he lost in a landslide when he ran for reelection.
Ronald Reagan is another example. He is so smooth and so effective a performer that he completely won over the American people. Only now, nearly seven years later, are people beginning to question whether there’s anything beneath that smile.
I see the same thing in my business, which is full of people who talk a good game but don’t deliver. When Trump Tower became successful, a lot of developers got the idea of imitating our atrium, and they ordered their architects to come up with a design. The drawings would come back, and they would start costing out the job.
What they discovered is that the bronze escalators were going to cost a million dollars extra, and the waterfall was going to cost two million dollars, and the marble was going to cost many millions more. They saw that it all added up to many millions of dollars, and all of a sudden these people with these great ambitions would decide, well, let’s forget about the atrium.
When Trump calculates the cost of his ambitious promises in his acceptance speech he will forget the promises. He won’t resign, either.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As a matter of fact, I have not voted for Feinstein since she sent me a smarmy response letter, from her then-exalted position as head of the Senate "Intelligence" Committee, telling me well, I know things that you don't know when I wrote to her urging her to vote against authorizing use of force in Iraq. That was in 2002. Hey, I know an evil waste of human flesh when I see one, so I voted Green.
Who else did you vote for besides Jill Stein? Because if you voted for other Green Party candidates, you really sent a protest that was noticed.
I'm proud to say that I have not had a hand in helping that stupid, warmongering bitch get elected since then. I may not be able to be part of the solution, but at least I'm not part of the problem.
Are you so anxious to "do something" that you can't "throw your vote away" on a losing candidate, even if it means being part of something terrible?
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm probably one of very few people who watched Donald's entire speech. There were many moments where I was thinking - 'yes, but ...', or 'that's wrong', or 'his crowd sounds like it's packed with professional boosters', or 'his attempt to reach Hispanics and African-Americans is pretty transparent'.
OTOH there were many, many moments where I thought 'Hillary could EASILY' make this go away'. But she hasn't, and she won't. Which is why Donald has a lot of the support he does. He's tapped into the feeling that many have that - if they're lucky enough to be working - they're working longer hours, and doing more, for less pay. That US foreign policy has been a losing quagmire of creating failed nations, one after the other. That they don't count with the government, which ceased listening to them and heeding their situation decades ago, that it only listens to the wealthy and powerful.
As I mentioned earlier, Democrats lost a big chunk of their supporters during Reagan's second term, as the bonus of being the only industrialized nation left intact after WWII started to wane. Wages slipped and more women had to go to work to maintain the family economy. And Democrats? Well, they haven't budged from their self-serving 'business as usual' back-room deal-making of back then, except of course when they adopted the self-enriching 'third-way' new internationalism of Billary.
Meanwhile, Republicans promised a Tea Party revolution for the people, and it got co-opted, then the 'true' Tea Party politicians tried to distinguish themselves, and failed - and now, an uber-rich outsider is saying what Republicans have been aggrieved with all this time. And what A LOT of people have been aggrieved with since 2007, when the Great Global Recession hit. That they've been sacrificed to big business by BOTH business AND their own government.
And this is going to segue into Hillary, since it's pointless to talk about one without talking about the other.
Hillary, as I said, could evaporate a lot of Donald's valid criticisms of her if she would just disavow her support for 'free' trade agreements once and for all, promise to break up too big to fail banks, and admit her foreign policy failures and get the US out of nation-breaking.
But she won't.
And that says a lot about who she really represents, which a lot of people very correctly interpret. Of course, second, you could continue to blame the hundreds of thousands of former democrats for being insufficiently fervent in their worship of the DNC over the last 30 years. Or you could examine the failure of the DNC to rise to the challenge of being able to fairly represent the people of the US.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you don't like Feinstein and Boxer, do California a favor and vote against them in the primary. That won't work? Not quick or practical enough for you? The Democrats will run different candidates if Feinstein and Boxer become Gabrielle Giffords. The lesson of the gun is what Firefly teaches. Gabrielle never ran for office again.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You may not have noticed , but both of CA's senators are democrats. Feinstein was elected with 62.5% of the vote vs Elizabeth Emken with 37.5% (Feinstein's war-hawk, pro-Israel stance boosted her numbers, as did Emken's unknown, under-funded status), Boxer with 52.2% vs (the uber-wealthy, well-funded and well-known) Fiorina with 42.2%. There was NOTHING riding on those votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords#Attempted_assassinati
on
Quote:Trump positions himself as the opposite of the DNC. You'd have to be a real loser to be conned by Trump. He will not be the savior of America's losers because he does not believe in what he says. He only says it because losers will believe. The Washington Post fact-checked Trump’s speech. You can watch the video of Trump and get comments from the Post about his lies here:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And that says a lot about who she really represents, which a lot of people very correctly interpret. Of course, second, you could continue to blame the hundreds of thousands of former democrats for being insufficiently fervent in their worship of the DNC over the last 30 years. Or you could examine the failure of the DNC to rise to the challenge of being able to fairly represent the people of the US.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/22/fact-checking-d
onald-trumps-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-rnc/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na
Now you need to ask why Trump is so successful. Laurie Penny explains here in more poetic, less trollish language than I would ever use:
https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6
e0b2932#.qzejcy8bz
Like Trump, and like a lot of successful politicians in this postmodern circus, they channel their own narcissism to give voice to the wordless, formless rage of the people neoliberalism left behind. They offer new win conditions for the humiliated masses. Welcome to the scream room. There’s a cheese plate.
I run into a British writer from the Spectator, a moderate right-wing magazine, who takes the opportunity to apologise for being mean to me on the internet. He thought that was just how you’re supposed to do Twitter. We become, briefly, allies on foreign soil. A certain school of spiteful camaraderie, of bloodless political jousting before dinner, has long been the form of political discourse in Britain, where the mainstream media is dominated by private school graduates who were trained to debate as if it were a bloodsport in which empathy is a handicap. London media wonks routinely treat one another as sparring partners and drinking buddies despite their political differences: after all, aren’t we all on the same team really? Aren’t we playing the same game?
I have never understood this game. That’s why I’ve always refused to debate Milo in public. Not because I’m frightened I’ll lose, but because I know I’ll lose, because I care and he doesn’t—and that means he’s already won. Help and forgive me, but I actually believe human beings can be better than this.
My new Spectator friend is as bewildered as I am by the way Americans take [Trump], Milo and his ilk seriously, by their willingness to take pride in performative bigotry and call it strength. It works. It sells. It’s the unholy marriage of that soulless debate culture that works so well in Britain, transplanted to a nation with no social safety net and half a billion guns. It works, in part, because of the essentially cult-like nature of U.S. culture and the structured ignorance that accompanies it. America is a nation eaten by its own myth. The entire idea of America is about believing impossible thi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You'd have to be a real loser to be conned by Trump."
You keep forgetting, I'm not pro-trump. But even if I was, it could be purely tactical way of being anti-Hillary. You don't have to believe in what he says to understand his usefulness as an alternative.
In any case, second, what I was trying to point out is that the system has left A LOT of people behind. And that it's Hillary's failure to address their suffering that's left that arena open for Donald to exploit.
Maybe you need to look to the DNC to figure out how it got itself in the position of losing the support of many disenfranchised.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The labor participation rate has dropped under Obama, from 65.7 percent in 2009 to 62.7 percent, but experts say just over half of the post-1999 decline in the participation rate comes from the retirement of the baby boomers. Economists estimate that just 15 percent of the drop in the labor force stems from people who want a job and are of prime working age (25-54)."
Wait, am I to understand that if I retire because I can't find work, or if I'm between 55 and 65 and can't find a job, and I leave the labor force, I don't count? Especially when it's older workers who will have the most difficulties finding new work? It's crap like this that has people so disgusted with the same-old-same-old, second. It's being discounted and ignored by officialdom that people resent.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--PeTKh-iHU4/VISR7zdTCzI/AAAAAAAAhjg/nOSJ-oIs
a5I/s1600/WomenPrimeNov2014.PNG
Here's women entering the workforce in the 1970s to help family income.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aAe82O96KO8/VISR4jG17HI/AAAAAAAAhjQ/Y6J_mRlW
Ndk/s1600/MenPrimeNov2014.PNG
And here's the labor participation rate for men which held steady during the Great Recession, except for 40-44 yr olds (middle management, I'm guessing), but which the dropped for all ages groups afterwards. It musta' been a killer recovery!
And here's the labor participation rate for 55+yr olds, which, oddly enough, doesn't seem to be showing significant retirement.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--PeTKh-iHU4/VISR7zdTCzI/AAAAAAAAhjg/nOSJ-oIs
a5I/s1600/WomenPrimeNov2014.PNG
Here's women entering the workforce in the 1970s to help family income.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aAe82O96KO8/VISR4jG17HI/AAAAAAAAhjQ/Y6J_mRlW
Ndk/s1600/MenPrimeNov2014.PNG
And here's the labor participation rate for men which held steady during the Great Recession, except for 40-44 yr olds (middle management, I'm guessing), but which the dropped for all ages groups afterwards. It musta' been a killer recovery!
And here's the labor participation rate for 55+yr olds, which, oddly enough, doesn't seem to be showing significant retirement.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If you don't like Feinstein and Boxer, do California a favor and vote against them in the primary. That won't work? Not quick or practical enough for you? The Democrats will run different candidates if Feinstein and Boxer become Gabrielle Giffords."
You completely misunderstood my post, second. What I was pointing out is that here in California, Signy can vote her conscience - or at least vote to send a message.
But your misunderstanding is illuminating. I can see you're an unhinged fanatic for the cause. Because people freely exercising their free vote - as a way to note their disgust with the democrats who sold them out ages ago - and to put pressure on democrats to change - is, according to you, just one step behind attempted assassination.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1022ES
Trump pulls nearly even with Clinton after Republican convention: Reuters/Ipsos poll
If only it wasn't for those damn voters, looking for a candidate who at leasts says they'll represent them, Hillary could get her uncontested coronation! Right second?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME