Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:Democrats are too afraid to actually do anything to help the middle calls...

You want to elaborate?

What are they unilaterally empowered to do?

Well they couldn't run fast enough away from Obamacare after the passage of the legislation...Obama was left alone to push it forward...Have you seen a democrat on stage outside Hillary talking about this legislation??

They didn't support the President against the legislation to let 9/11 families sue Saudi Arabia..Only Harry Reid...

TPP, Zika funding, Syrians refugees....Democratic push back involved in all those legislation...

Not sure how most of these apply specifically to the middle class, which is what I interpreted middle calls to mean.

Yup middle class...Every democrat in Congress will tell you they are working for the middle class..

Well you can start with the Stimulus...The President initially proposed a stimulus I think of close to 1.5 trillion...The President only got about 600 million of stimulus dollars and 350 million of tax cuts because republicans insisted...It was a democratic congress...They have never wielded their power the way the republicans have over the years...Republicans will authorize a war that will spend 5 trillion dollars abroad and democrats can't pass a bill to rebuild our infrastructure...

I think it's important here to distinguish between the things people want/need to hear and the reality on the ground.

No president can sign, no congress is going to pass a bill that's every been any real conversation that'll directly demonstratively and significantly effect the middle class.

Tax cuts, tax credits, etc, these fall into the "any little bit helps" category. They are not game changers.

All one has to do it google "wealth inequality" to figures and trends lines that tell the story. There is no significant improvement to be had while that dynamic remains in place, much less continues to accelerate, which it does.

It is simply a question of basic math.

There is TONS of Public/Private collaboration that could spur growth and increase gains to the Middle Class and uplift incomes for those trying to get to Middle Class. In fact if the Republicans weren't applying breaks to everything Obama was trying to do we'd already have much higher growth and incomes. Things are not as bad as they seem if you remove the obstruction from Conservatives.

Down here Obama had provided funds to help build a high speed rail from Georgia through to Florida, but Republicans refused to take on the project.
http://floridatransportationtoday.typepad.com/florida-transportation-ne/high-speed-rail/

martin wrote:Feel like Vox.com has some fairly relevant stuff at a general level.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/13/13272608/trump-conspiracy-theory-media

There gist:

Trump says his followers must entirely reject the press

Trump needs to salvage his brand

Trump is likely setting himself up as a media entrepreneur

Despite Trump’s attacks on “the media,” the fact of the matter is that the CEO of his campaign, Steve Bannon, used to run a media company — Breitbart.com, in which a major Trump donor, the Mercer family, is also a major investor.

Bannon has not, thus far, managed to do much to help Trump win the presidency. But his stewardship of Breitbart has shown real savvy and effectiveness in building up a digital-native conservative media brand. What Bannon’s site doesn’t have much of, at this point, is the kind of on-camera talent that could turn Breitbart into a video juggernaut. Trump himself, however, is an experienced television host, as is Trump’s close ally Sean Hannity, who is thought to be considering a departure from Fox News.

Also closely in the Trump orbit are Roger Ailes, the business genius who built Fox into the cable enterprise it is today before being ousted for sexual harassment, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who owns the New York Observer.

While Trump and his team do not appear capable of winning a general election in the United States, they certainly have the right mix of skills and experience to operate a successful media company, folding the existing Breitbart and Hannity franchises together with the Trump brand to form Trump TV or Trump Media.

But to pull it off, they can’t exit the 2016 campaign surrounded by the stink of a loser. That makes their impending electoral defeat a pretty serious problem. A campaign to scapegoat the establishment press for Trump’s electoral defeat makes the perfect exit strategy.

Here is my skepticism about a Trump-Breitbart news network.

I just took a look at Breitbart.com, and Drudge just for good measure.

And as I suspected, there is no direct display advertising to be seen. Breitbart devotes a significant part of their online real estate to their own branded merchandise (tell tale sign), and they have some perfunctory Google (or some other network) ads. I can't see any native advertisers.

I checked because every time I hear the notion of the TV network (a WHOLE other realm than a website, not matter how successful) I wonder where the advertising support will come from. Who is going to sign up to sponsor their brand of crazy? It would be an extremely limited pool of advertisers who would want to sign up for that brand.

You don't fund a TV network with fringe advertisers. No auto manufacturer, financial institution, etc. is going to subject themselves to that association.

A TBN - at least anything close to have the editorial brand of its founders, would be a rinky-dink operation at best.

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:Feel like Vox.com has some fairly relevant stuff at a general level.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/13/13272608/trump-conspiracy-theory-media

There gist:

Trump says his followers must entirely reject the press

Trump needs to salvage his brand

Trump is likely setting himself up as a media entrepreneur

Despite Trump’s attacks on “the media,” the fact of the matter is that the CEO of his campaign, Steve Bannon, used to run a media company — Breitbart.com, in which a major Trump donor, the Mercer family, is also a major investor.

Bannon has not, thus far, managed to do much to help Trump win the presidency. But his stewardship of Breitbart has shown real savvy and effectiveness in building up a digital-native conservative media brand. What Bannon’s site doesn’t have much of, at this point, is the kind of on-camera talent that could turn Breitbart into a video juggernaut. Trump himself, however, is an experienced television host, as is Trump’s close ally Sean Hannity, who is thought to be considering a departure from Fox News.

Also closely in the Trump orbit are Roger Ailes, the business genius who built Fox into the cable enterprise it is today before being ousted for sexual harassment, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who owns the New York Observer.

While Trump and his team do not appear capable of winning a general election in the United States, they certainly have the right mix of skills and experience to operate a successful media company, folding the existing Breitbart and Hannity franchises together with the Trump brand to form Trump TV or Trump Media.

But to pull it off, they can’t exit the 2016 campaign surrounded by the stink of a loser. That makes their impending electoral defeat a pretty serious problem. A campaign to scapegoat the establishment press for Trump’s electoral defeat makes the perfect exit strategy.

Here is my skepticism about a Trump-Breitbart news network.

I just took a look at Breitbart.com, and Drudge just for good measure.

And as I suspected, there is no direct display advertising to be seen. Breitbart devotes a significant part of their online real estate to their own branded merchandise (tell tale sign), and they have some perfunctory Google (or some other network) ads. I can't see any native advertisers.

I checked because every time I hear the notion of the TV network (a WHOLE other realm than a website, not matter how successful) I wonder where the advertising support will come from. Who is going to sign up to sponsor their brand of crazy? It would be an extremely limited pool of advertisers who would want to sign up for that brand.

You don't fund a TV network with fringe advertisers. No auto manufacturer, financial institution, etc. is going to subject themselves to that association.

A TBN - at least anything close to have the editorial brand of its founders, would be a rinky-dink operation at best.

They have Roger Ailes in their camp...He knows how to build a news network..It doesn't have to be entirely fringe..It can push Fox..

Breitbart is in direct opposition to Fox has much as MSNBC is. There is no mainstreaming the alt right, it is openly white nationalist and conspiracy-driven.

Take that away you and take away what makes Breitbart Breitbart.

It isn't a matter of the ability or lack thereof of Ailes. It's a matter of what space they occupy. An alternative to Fox would look VERY different than a TV extension of Breitbart.

I'd be surprised if they attempt the former. I'm skeptical of the success of the latter.

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

martin wrote:Feel like Vox.com has some fairly relevant stuff at a general level.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/13/13272608/trump-conspiracy-theory-media

There gist:

Trump says his followers must entirely reject the press

Trump needs to salvage his brand

Trump is likely setting himself up as a media entrepreneur

Despite Trump’s attacks on “the media,” the fact of the matter is that the CEO of his campaign, Steve Bannon, used to run a media company — Breitbart.com, in which a major Trump donor, the Mercer family, is also a major investor.

Bannon has not, thus far, managed to do much to help Trump win the presidency. But his stewardship of Breitbart has shown real savvy and effectiveness in building up a digital-native conservative media brand. What Bannon’s site doesn’t have much of, at this point, is the kind of on-camera talent that could turn Breitbart into a video juggernaut. Trump himself, however, is an experienced television host, as is Trump’s close ally Sean Hannity, who is thought to be considering a departure from Fox News.

Also closely in the Trump orbit are Roger Ailes, the business genius who built Fox into the cable enterprise it is today before being ousted for sexual harassment, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who owns the New York Observer.

While Trump and his team do not appear capable of winning a general election in the United States, they certainly have the right mix of skills and experience to operate a successful media company, folding the existing Breitbart and Hannity franchises together with the Trump brand to form Trump TV or Trump Media.

But to pull it off, they can’t exit the 2016 campaign surrounded by the stink of a loser. That makes their impending electoral defeat a pretty serious problem. A campaign to scapegoat the establishment press for Trump’s electoral defeat makes the perfect exit strategy.

Here is my skepticism about a Trump-Breitbart news network.

I just took a look at Breitbart.com, and Drudge just for good measure.

And as I suspected, there is no direct display advertising to be seen. Breitbart devotes a significant part of their online real estate to their own branded merchandise (tell tale sign), and they have some perfunctory Google (or some other network) ads. I can't see any native advertisers.

I checked because every time I hear the notion of the TV network (a WHOLE other realm than a website, not matter how successful) I wonder where the advertising support will come from. Who is going to sign up to sponsor their brand of crazy? It would be an extremely limited pool of advertisers who would want to sign up for that brand.

You don't fund a TV network with fringe advertisers. No auto manufacturer, financial institution, etc. is going to subject themselves to that association.

A TBN - at least anything close to have the editorial brand of its founders, would be a rinky-dink operation at best.

They have Roger Ailes in their camp...He knows how to build a news network..It doesn't have to be entirely fringe..It can push Fox..

Breitbart is in direct opposition to Fox has much as MSNBC is. There is no mainstreaming the alt right, it is openly white nationalist and conspiracy-driven.

Take that away you and take away what makes Breitbart Breitbart.

It isn't a matter of the ability or lack thereof of Ailes. It's a matter of what space they occupy. An alternative to Fox would look VERY different than a TV extension of Breitbart.

I'd be surprised if they attempt the former. I'm skeptical of the success of the latter.

Why do you think Trump would anoint Breitbart over Ailes for such a venture?

Because that is the epicenter of speculation, considering Bannon is the CEO of his campaign and seemingly pushing many of the buttons that are being pushed at the moment.

The press conference before the debate was Bannon. The scorned earth/all-out war with the media is Bannon. The trying to delegitimize the election and conspiracy theory about fraud is Bannon.

It's like when Larry David did Curb Your Enthusiasm and everyone fully appreciated how much of Larry David's voice was actually in Seinfeld.

You don't think Bannon was pushing his buttons on birtherism all along?

Breitbart and Drudge have clearly clearly shaped his political worldview for more than Fox.

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:-12 women accusing Trump so far...

For fairness:

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.

Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.

But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Bill Clinton isn't running for President..

Yeah, he was president. lol
And now he will be back in the White House again. What is he gonna do with all that time?

For the millionth time - what does this have to do with Hillary's fitness to be president? This reminds me of Obama being blamed for the words of Rev. Wright and the deeds of Bill Ayers 40 years ago. This republican strategy of guilt by association will not work. Trump's action isn't offset by the actions of his opponent's husband. And Trump should be happy nobody is bringing up the ACTIVE child rape case he's defending himself against as we speak.

Do you really need this explained to you?
Hillary must be a good judge of character marrying a rapist, eh?
Like attracts like, there is a reason these two criminals have stayed together all these years.