Now THIS makes sense for Trump’s post-campaign loss strategy:
From *The Atlantic *online-
Introducing The Trump News Channel—Coming in 2017?
This would suit him a lot better than being president, not to mention it would be a helluva lot more fun. AND make money, too. Turns a lose-lose into a win-win-- but of course, he didn’t lose-lose, because it was rigged and Hillary stole it. In fact, that might be the first in-depth story **TNN **covers.
What I’m worried about is that it will be 1964 all over again. You know, the one Johnson won by a landslide not because people liked him but were voting against Goldwater.
Unfortunately, not realizing this, Johnson thought he could do no wrong. The Great Society was one positive result. The Viet Nam war was not so much.
Add me to the list of people fearing an “October Surprise.” In my paranoid mind I fear the Russians have something very damaging on HRC. Then what?
That’s simply an offensive tactic to counter whatever the hell is wrong with Trump medically.
The “doctor’s letter” that Trump provided is hilarious, and likely written by Trump himself.
Donald is in perfect health! He is the BEST!
Signed, Donald’s doctor"
And as per the letter he had “only positive results”. I don’t think Trump or the hack doctors knows what that means. One does not want to find to be positive with many conditions.
(Mr Burns is just a breze away from [del]dying[/del] "**indestructible!** you mean" - Mr. Burns.)Four per cent, actually. 51.1-47.2.
In any sane world Trump wouldn’t even finish third, but some people just like fascism. There’s a reason it keeps popping up.
Voting for a Democrat is less “articulate” than voting third party, as I have told you before. If you want to argue that voting major party is pragmatic game theory, fine. But it’s not “articulate” to vote for the Democrats.
And considering there are more die-hard Republicans in this nation than die-hard Democrats, I don’t think it’s entirely sensible to tell them to suck it up and vote for “the enemy.”
Reaganism? You didn’t say good reforms.
What I fear more is a sophisticated hacking attack in several states that cause “glitches” and throw the results of elections into doubt. In and of itself, doubts about the fairness of these elections alone would be a potentially destabilizing event. Democracy, more than any other type of government, depends on the perception of legitimacy. Take that away, and it collapses.
How did Reaganism result from registering disgust with the system by voting third party?
Even if Anderson’s votes all went to Carter he’d have lost. If anything Anderson pulled more of his support from Republicans who felt that Reagan was too far to the Right but it was still a hugely lopsided victory.
Reaganism resulted because Carter was not very effective as president and because Reagan was an extremely effective communicator … not in any way because of third party voting.
Must we call them TrumpBart? Given who does the thinking and who follows who’s orders, itso more like…
BreiTrump…