Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

Hey, Bernie, what Billionaire Class?

Buffet's invitation to compare tax returns with Trump is just one more bizarre speed bump in this election.  Dueling billionaire tax returns.  (Thank goodness Buffett is fighting for us.)

[Herman]

It's not a requirement for being President, and it stretches back only to the 50s, so Trump has a well-reasoned, historical basis for saying he won't release that information, though, of course, that's not how he would put it.  I think he can get away with it.  If enough senior Republican leaders demand it, it will be harder to resist, but Dems, former Republican George Will, and that loser Mitt Romney will not suffice to convince the Donald.

It's significant though that the pressure is mounting to do as others do. The facts that he pressed Obama for the birth certificate and Romney for his tax returns is making it harder for Trump.

What he'll do (as he always does) is try to talk it away, and thus keep the issue alive. He'll never release his tax returns, because he's figured he'll lose more votes by doing so, and exposing that he pays as about as much taxes as a small town plumber. Plus his entire ego is tied up with the idea that he's soooo rich.

It's the "He says it like it is" part he's losing credibility in.

It's a dream scenario for the Dems: Trump is doing all the damage to himself. It's like a cartoon car wreck dropping parts along the way to the precipice.

Trump would say: It's gonna be soooo beautiful.

[mc ukrneal]

Not that El Tupé will do anything that he doesn't want to do (that's why they love him so!), but Geo. Will suggests that the release of the tax returns would clarify what Russia does or does not mean to The Nominee.

What do you think, Todd?  Will he get away with non-disclosure all the way through to Election Day?  Lawd knows, El Tupé and clarification have a non-relationship.

"As you know, if I announce [a presidential bid], I will have to release very detailed information about my wealth," Trump said on CNN. [in 2011]
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/trump-wont-release-returns-just-yet-053847#ixzz4G9gJd5E7

[Karl Henning]

"As you know, if I announce [a presidential bid], I will have to release very detailed information about my wealth," Trump said on CNN. [in 2011]
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/trump-wont-release-returns-just-yet-053847#ixzz4G9gJd5E7

Of course, he makes contradictory remarks within seconds of one another.

Warren Buffett says he'll release his tax returns if [El Tupé] does too

Actually, I hope he doesn't, not until the debates, anyway;  I think we will enjoy this being a point in at least one of the debates.

[André]

Press sensationalism is working, then.  Perhaps Trump is heavily influenced by Putin, perhaps not, but perception is what matters.




That's from July 30th of last year.

Carter has been talking about similar themes for a few years.

The story is reported and analysed at length (not just a T- shirt picture) in many leading world papers (Le Monde, The Guardian, La Repubblica). I didn't check german newspapers, but I suppose that in this global glass house, it's all over the world.

This is from yesterday's edition of Le Monde http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2016/07/08/les-troublantes-liaisons-entre-trump-et-poutine_4966148_3210.html?xtmc=trump_poutine&xtcr=2 and Italy's La Repubblica: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2016/07/28/trump-ai-russi-rubate-le-mail-a-hillary13.html?ref=search.

The fact is that Trump leaves so many smoking guns all over the place, it's hard to keep up with all the hints, declarations, tweets, contradictions, gaffes and 'sarcasms'.

[Ken B]

The fact is that Trump leaves so many smoking guns all over the place, it's hard to keep up with all the hints, declarations, tweets, contradictions, gaffes and 'sarcasms'.

Whereas Hillary Clinton hasn't said anything embarrassing in a press conference for ages.

[Karl Henning]

Whereas Hillary Clinton hasn't said anything embarrassing in a press conference for ages.

One of the two is clearly succeeding better.

[Ken B]

One of the two is clearly succeeding better.

Seriously though, at what? At seeming scripted and fake, or at seeming a real person? You hate Trump, and you seize on every minor thing as further proof, but to many people that stuff doesn't matter because they (rightly) discount carefully scripted blather.

My point of course was that Hillary won't have press conferences. Her every word is scripted. This is probably unwise.

[Karl Henning]

Seriously though, at what? At seeming scripted and fake, or at seeming a real person? You hate Trump, and you seize on every minor thing as further proof, but to many people that stuff doesn't matter because they (rightly) discount carefully scripted blather.

My point of course was that Hillary won't have press conferences. Her every word is scripted. This is probably unwise.

I would say, instead, that El Tupé does and says contemptible things.  Nor am I saying that Hillary is an exemplar of transparency and unassailable truth.  Your point is good;  Hillary can be rather clunky when she improvises ("That's what they offered," of the Goldman, Sachs & Co. speaking fees).

I would say, too, not that I seize on every minor thing.  Half the time (for argument's sake) when someone explains what they don't like about Hillary, the response is, she's a liar.  You will agree that El Tupé out-lies Hillary every day of the week.  Will there come a time when those many people object more to the lies, weasel words and self-delusion of El Tupé than to Hillary's script?  That's a question in which I take an intellectual interest.

[zamyrabyrd]

There is probably no other person who can beat Shillery than Tupee.
For me, that it is the one redeeming quality, trumping other peccadilloes.
The way things are no one of real integrity could climb so high in politics or win.
Nice guys finish last.

[André]

The whole world is taking an unusual interest in this election. When you sleep with an elephant, you want to know it's regularly taking its sleeping pills at night and its dose of ritalin when waking up. Trump has the disturbing effect of making everyone nervous whenever he opens his mouth. No wonder comments are heard 'round the globe. The political chemistry is taking a very different turn.

[Ken B]

I would say, instead, that El Tupé does and says contemptible things.  Nor am I saying that Hillary is an exemplar of transparency and unassailable truth.  Your point is good;  Hillary can be rather clunky when she improvises ("That's what they offered," of the Goldman, Sachs & Co. speaking fees).

I would say, too, not that I seize on every minor thing.  Half the time (for argument's sake) when someone explains what they don't like about Hillary, the response is, she's a liar.  You will agree that El Tupé out-lies Hillary every day of the week.  Will there come a time when those many people object more to the lies, weasel words and self-delusion of El Tupé than to Hillary's script?  That's a question in which I take an intellectual interest.

" You will agree that El Tupé out-lies Hillary every day of the week. "

Actually no. Not at a lie per statement rate.
I'm not convinced Trump is lying a lot of the time either. I think he's one of these guys who is slack about facts, and sees certainty where there is none, if the fact supports him.  Hillary is more deliberate. When Hillary says she cooperated with the FBI that is a flat out lie.

[Todd]

What he'll do (as he always does) is try to talk it away, and thus keep the issue alive. He'll never release his tax returns, because he's figured he'll lose more votes by doing so, and exposing that he pays as about as much taxes as a small town plumber. Plus his entire ego is tied up with the idea that he's soooo rich.

I think this is more or less the case.

The fact is that Trump leaves so many smoking guns all over the place, it's hard to keep up with all the hints, declarations, tweets, contradictions, gaffes and 'sarcasms'.

It looks like you and I have vastly different definitions for the phrase "smoking gun".  Hints, declarations, tweets, contradictions, gaffes, and sarcasms are not concrete evidence.  They're campaign rhetoric.  Big difference.

On just the email hacking issue, David Sanger of the NY Times discussed this more soberly last night on Charlie Rose, going over the timelines of the two main hacks of the DNC, which Russian agencies may have done the hacking, and pointed out that the first one happened before Trump or Hillary even announced they were running.  The main point Sanger made was that the Russians engaged in standard behavior up to the point that they possibly released information (even that is not definitively known, except perhaps in intelligence agencies), and whatever motives they may have appear to not center around Trump.  Trump has seized on it in his normal blustery showman's way to make it campaign issue, but it is not particularly likely that Putin makes decisions based on what Trump says or wants.

A smoking gun on Trump's darkly hinted at financial ties to Russia would be, at best, only partly revealed in tax returns.  Again, actually engaging in financial transactions with Russia, presuming Trump relies on the US banking system a lot, is not something even the richest men using the biggest banks can do on a whim.  There are not just traces of activity, there are transaction level reports, but these may not (probably wouldn't) even be included in supporting documentation for tax returns.

I admit that I do not read La Monde or La Repubblica, but I read The Guardian every day, and their "analyses" are biased.  They are OK on hard news (who, what, where, when), and it is OK for them to be biased (that's actually why I read it), but to assign special significance to it requires a faith in its editorial board and authors that I do not have.  It is worth noting that I approach the Wall Street Journal the same way.

The whole world is taking an unusual interest in this election.

Perhaps this will result in some useful action by various governments.  Maybe various European governments, in particular, will decide that they must step it up when it comes to their own security, and stop being free riders, a term even Obama has used. 

[Karl Henning]

There are millions of voters who are willing to ignore their discomfort because he is the candidate of change.  He does go too far and voters don't like it, but it proves that he is different and it proves that he is absolutely, positively willing to take on the status quo.

[Herman]

" You will agree that El Tupé out-lies Hillary every day of the week. "

Actually no. Not at a lie per statement rate.
I'm not convinced Trump is lying a lot of the time either. I think he's one of these guys who is slack about facts, and sees certainty where there is none, if the fact supports him.  Hillary is more deliberate. When Hillary says she cooperated with the FBI that is a flat out lie.

There's research on this. Trump out-lies everybody else in the political arena. Both by design and by ignorance.

And the other funny thing is, Hillary seems to be one of the most truthful political speakers.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

[Gurn Blanston]

There's research on this. Trump out-lies everybody else in the political arena. Both by design and by ignorance.

And the other funny thing is, Hillary seems to be one of the most truthful political speakers.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Yes, I read a different fact checker which came to virtually the same conclusion. Trump was 'pants on fire' more often than any other candidate they had ever checked! 

[mc ukrneal]

When Hillary says she cooperated with the FBI that is a flat out lie.

Is it? She didn't cooperate with them? She didn't answer their questions? What is the lie?

[André]

About lies... political and others.  Isn't every politician a 'caretaker of truth' ? Concealed, revealed, disguised, embellished, 'truth' has had more facelifts than any of Hollywood's stars. 

As an outsider, I'm rather surprised by this anal obesssion with 'truth'. What about empathy, care, leadership, experience, common sense and, last, culture and intellect ?

[Brian]

Is it? She didn't cooperate with them? She didn't answer their questions? What is the lie?

Most recently, this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

[mc ukrneal]

Most recently, this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

But Ken said that she lied about cooperating with the FBI. I am curious if he meant that literally or not. After all, your article quotes Comey as saying, "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI." Ken did not say she lied to someone else, which is no better mind you, but just not what he said.