Bernie has been untouched by both Trump and the Republican party machine. Watch how fast his numbers would get worse when they get around to training the guns on him.
You’re joking, right? I really hope you are joking.
Because you are a smart guy, not usually prone to making such a ridiculously mindless statement. Do I need to remind you of all of the CEOs who have sat in front of investigators and pled ignorance to the way their underlings ran their enterprise, if only to escape personal liability for some malfeasance? More specifically, do I need to remind you that Trump is currently embroiled in a lawsuit concerning Trump University, the crux of which is that Trump had little to no involvement with an organization he owned and promoted?
But forget generalities. How does Trump react when his organization is shown to be embroiled in some difficulties? How closely does he keep his finger on the pulse? Is it really true that Trump would never say that he doesn’t know what’s going on in his own organization, especially when it’s been challenged?
I give you the Deposition:
(For context, this is a deposition from the Trump University lawsuit, which depo occurred in March. The questioner is the attorney representing the Plaintiffs in the case, and the answers are being given by Donald J. Trump, presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States. Mr. Sexton is Michael Sexton, who Trump hired as President of Trump University. The reference to the ‘2005 New York State Department of Education’ issue was the fact that Trump University did not properly register in New York as a university (nor could it, since it did not offer degrees); the company finally changed its name to Trump Entrepeneur Initiative in 2010. The specific quotes begin on page 53 of the cited document, which is page 273 of the transcript. Disclaimer: The transcript is not complete; some pages are omitted. I tried to find the entire thing, to no avail)
Q: Do you recall Mr. Sexton bringing to your attention in 2005 issues with the New York State Department of Education regarding the legality of using the name “University” in the State of New York?
A: Very vaguely, but I thought he had it all worked out.
Q:·So you remember the issue coming up back then, but you thought he worked it out?
A: I thought he worked it out. I remember the issue, but I thought it was all worked out.
Q: And what – what do you recall him doing to work out the issue back in 2005?
A: It wasn’t a question of what he did. But I just thought he had it worked out. I didn’t know what he did, but I did not think it was an issue.
Q: So from 2005 – from 2006 forward, you thought that issue had been resolved?
A: I did not think it was an issue. I remember hearing about the issue, but I thought that it was all worked out. Unfortunately, maybe it wasn’t.
Q: What, if anything, did you do to verify that it had been resolved in 2005?
A: Nothing.·I thought it was worked out.
Q: Okay.·And you thought it was worked out based on what?
A: Just based on the fact that I didn’t hear much about it anymore, if anything.·Until later, I didn’t hear about it.·I thought that this is – I mean, this is a thing that is not very difficult to work out one way or the other,and I would have assumed that Mr. Sexton would have been able to work that out.
Q: So other than assuming he would have been able to work it out, did you actually do anything to confirm –
A: No.
Q: – whether or not it had been worked out?
A: No, because I didn’t think it was necessary.·I thought he was – he was in charge,he was doing a job.· And I thought he would have gotten this taken care of.
Q: And you later learned that was not the case; correct?
A: Well, I later learned it was continuing onward, which – I was surprised because I thought it was something that could have been routinely handled.
Q: But you understand now that it was not, in fact, resolved in 2005; correct?
A: I guess it wasn’t, but – I thought it was, but I guess it wasn’t.· And I heard that only later on.
(At this point, a less brave person would change their posting handle and slink away. adahr is made of stronger stuff though - perhaps he will just “unskew” the deposition)
What I’ve learned is never to rely on Donald Trump to demonstrate the right way to do anything. His tweet is still valid though. As is Obama’s original attack on him. Two guys throwing stones in a glass house.
Yeah, Trump’s an abomination. And I know that you were never in the bag for him, anyway.
From what I can glean, his management style would lead itself to lots of people running freely amuck in his White House. It’s something that has been done to other weak Presidents in the past…Grant and Harding come to mind. I think we could expect bribery and corruption scandals in a Trump presidency, even if not directly tied to him.
(From him, I’d expect we’d get so many vacation days that it would put Reagan and W to shame).
Because the article also discusses other sources and puts the whole thing in context. But, you knew that.
Hopefully the recent interview with Megyn Kelly will give him more support from women. He also said excuse me for the bimbo remark.
anti-incumbency against a party which won twice in a row is often strong.
This is helping Trump big time.
Apparently not. Which is deeply disturbing.
There’s no good reason why we should, but, the study does.
No I didn’t know that. I never read your Salon or alternet links anymore, I’ve learned they are usually crappy articles.
Same here.
Robert Kagan wrote a very sobering piece for The Washington Post on the threat of fascism posed by Trump’s election: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?postshare=921463661898452&tid=ss_tw
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! When I posted a similar topic some months ago, it was universally derided as a ludicrous impossibility.
I’m curious: remember how plenty of folks said That Was It for Trump after he mocked McCain as not being a war hero? Or how his political demise was predicted when he didn’t raise his hand in that first debate? And then he pulled out of a debate, rather than take questions from someone with blood coming out of her wherever?
Obviously he’s done a ton of stuff since, and folks no longer seem to be figuring it’ll stop him cold: punishing women who get abortions, saying his tax returns are none of your business, the whole John Miller/John Barron thing – a year ago, I would’ve guessed any one of those would’ve done it; now, all of 'em don’t seem to dent.
He boasted he could shoot a guy on Fifth Avenue and keep his support.
So I’m wondering: is anyone here bold enough to mention a This Is The Big One item that actually would have that effect? Like, if he’s on the stage with Hillary, and throws around the “N” word – any takers? Or he says no woman could possibly do as good a job as commander-in-chief as a man – anyone?
Is there any one thing that you figure he could say that would doom him?
(I mean, apart from something meta, like saying he lied about everything he’s said during the campaign, because he just wanted to prove that Americans will vote for someone who offers the wrong solutions loudly enough. I’ll grant that, yes, that would probably do it on one sentence – but that’s not really the point.)
The difference is that all his success before was based inside the bubble of the Republican primary. What he has really proven is that there is a strong plurality of about 41% of the Republican base who are turned on by his uncouth bullying and the more uncouth and bullying he is the more they like him. Yes it’s true nothing he can say in the debate against Clinton will turn them off. But this group is a much smaller portion of the general election population. Passing around the N word might not hurt you so much if there are no N’s in the audience, but its not going to go over quite so well in a more diverse setting. So it not so much going to be This Is The Big One as it is the change in setting making all the previous items not go over as well.
The suggested things (shooting someone, or using the ‘N’ word, or saying no woman can do a good job as commander-in-chief) are all things that his fans would like and approve–they are macho, aggressive, who-cares-what-anyone-thinks type of actions.
So, none of those would stop him (though a stint in jail for shooting someone would derail his Presidential ambitions for at least a while).
Also unlikely to disillusion his fans: wildly-irresponsible statements about Trump’s plans: ‘I will give nukes to each nation of the Middle East and let them do whatever, and that will solve the Middle East problem’ or such wouldn’t dismay his fans–it would lead them to nod their heads and marvel at how clever Trump is.
What WOULD stop Trump: anything that would destroy the delusion his fans have that he’s a Tough Guy, a Manly Guy, a Take-No-Shit Guy.
So, it would have to be something that would repel and disgust those who think that being a Tough and Manly Guy is the most important thing in the world. And that means something to do with sexuality considered transgressive. It could be proof of such: a quantity of video/photographic evidence that he cross dresses, that is too large to have been faked, or irrefutable evidence that he has gay sex on a regular basis, for example.
Or if you want to stay on the ‘something he could say that would sink his campaign’ idea, then: “I love gay sex,” or “I relax in women’s clothing” would do it. After such a statement there would be uneasy laughter from his fans, as they’d assume that this was the beginning of some sort of joke that would result in a take-down of Hillary…but if no joke emerged, they would go home filled with doubt about Trump.
So, that’s it. That’s the only type of statement from Trump that would lose him support.
Teddy, nylons and garter belts . . . check . . . MegaKong 2000 with bidirectional rotary stud action . . . check . . . chloral hydrate . . . check . . . personal lubricant . . . why bother? . . . airplane reservations . . . check . . .
“I don’t think it was me; it doesn’t sound like me. I think it was John Miller.”
Amusing thought: what if, as part of a triangulation effort for the general election, he promised loudly to be a tough, manly guy… AGAINST some kind of conservative sacred cow, like guns?
I expect Trump to do some zany triangulations. He’ll be a huuuuuge peacemaker, but still want to carpet-bomb the Middle East, maybe drop a nuke on the Kaaba. He’ll be Putin’s best friend but ready to renounce U.S bonds held by Japan or China. His healthcare plan will be a splendid combination of 100% capitalism and 150% socialism. The wall against Mexico will have a huuuuuge wide-open door.
But guns are off the table. For a very large number of low-information voters (i.e. Trump supporters), the three huuuugest issues in American politics are Guns, Guns, and GUNS !