On the other hand, this piece in the New Yorker lays out a reasonable case for why we won’t see Trump TV.
Might be more likely to see something more “New Media” - Trump mashup of Breitbart & Infowars anyone?
(Partial ninja by EP - .must.refresh.often.)
Have you observed the kind of ads the rightwing broadcasters carry? Shit like goldline? The extreme types tend to be overly credulous. He would have no trouble lining up all the scam artistes to play to an audience of primarily dupes.
John McCain is campaigning for Republicans around the country (even though he’s in a very tight reelection bid in Arizona) bypromising that a Republican majority in the Senate would block any Hillary Supreme Court nominee.
This is pretty interesting. I wonder if his colleagues agree, or if this is just a gambit to simultaneously harm Trump and help elect a GOP Senate.
I’ve long said that the Glorious Dictatorship of Justice Elena Kagan in Year 2032 will be a period of relative happiness for the country.
No, I don’t. The problem with the idea Trump’s going to create a news network that actually threatens Fox News isn’t that there isn’t a market for this stuff. It’s that the market already has the product. Why would Trump’s product be more popular - especially after he loses? Trump isn’t polling 40% of people who want a news network, they want Trump to be President. If he fails, he will be a failure to them. A yuge loser, you might say.
It’s akin to saying that there seems to be an insatiable demand for superhero movies, so Donald Trump can just start writing and producing superhero movies and he’ll take half of Marvel’s audience. That would be perfectly logical except for the small problem that Trump doesn’t know how to make a movie and people seem to be pretty good with the superhero movie franchises they’ve got.
“Vote for us and keep the gears of government fully locked! Getting things done is for losers!”
:rolleyes:
Oops. I wonder if Alaska is the only one?
It was the first thing I thought of, it’s logical to wonder. Smells like a Trump supporter to me; killing two birds with one stone - making Clinton supporters look bad, and getting back at the GOP biggies for snubbing Trump.
Trump was the only one who benefited. Why would Democrats do this? How would it benefit us? All we have to do is sit tight until Election Day. Let Trump continue to implode, filling the headlines with crazy - such as SNL is in on the vast global conspiracy against him.
Truth be told, I’ve been worried about worse being staged than this empty office bombing attack…
It’s interesting that on that same page, their poll has Hillary within 2 points of Trump of taking Alaska.
The N Vietnamese couldn’t break John McCain, but John McCain could.
And I assume there will be a grab-a-pussy pet store show also.
I dunno. He’s no Oprah, and he doesn’t like to give away free stuff neither.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That can only be a plus for Trump. The more people know about him, the less they like him.
Relevant quote from the article:
"Trump’s campaign didn’t send the necessary materials to Alaskan election officials before the August 30 deadline, according a report from The Hill. Gary Johnson’s campaign also failed to respond to Alaskan election officials in time.
The Hill reported that Josie Bahnke, Alaska’s director of elections, also reached out to the Republican National Committee, Paul Ryan, and the Alaska GOP, but no one responded in time to be included in the pamphlet."
So the Trump campaign is the one who dropped the ball here.
Trump dropped the ball in many ways. Not doing the work and pissing off people otherwise inclined to help him.
Radical Independent Terrorism? They are the biggest group after all aren’t they?
Don’t forget Anne Gorsuch to “head” (sorry, I mean “strip down”) the EPA.
I’ve been wondering about this also. I’d be perfectly fine if Hillary wants to ‘run up the score’ between now and Election Day, but I could also see the option for her to say that “enough is enough” and revert to run-out-the-clock mode.