« Sanders delegate's video of DNC "shaping" the audience last night | Main | Syria - 30 July 2016 »

29 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Margaret, if forign policy was not an issue on this election ( much unlike Bush 1 in 92) you wouldn't find necessary to make that comment 2 days after people walked out of your convention.
Sounds like now days Colonel LANG is open and tolerating all kind of blue feelings, including post convention blues.


I didn't watch any convention goings-on -- at a point late in his life, St. Augustine foreswore going to the circuses, called it sinful.

BUT -- Did Madeleine Albright speak and encourage women to stay out of hell and vote for Hillary?

Did Victoria Nuland appear to display the feminine side of "f&%k Europe?"

Mark Gaughan

Did you read the article? Also, I wasn't talking about Hillary Clinton.

Margaret Steinfels

I am far away from TV and radio; didn't watch/attend the conventions. So what comment wouldn't I make "2 days after people walked out of your convention." Not my convention.

Mark Gaughan

I wasn't talking about Hillary Clinton. I posted the New Yorker article because, to me, it shows what a fraud Donald Trump is. I thought that this committee would be interested in it. The fact that his book was ghostwritten had nothing to do with my posting the article.


It is unfortunate because Hillary could lead us into WWIII. It would be a very small consolation if after such a cataclysm we could sit back and say "we told you what might happen, but you didn't listen".

Mark Gaughan

This was supposed to be in response to rjj, not myself. Oops!

Mark Gaughan

may, not make

Sam Peralta

These national polls are nothing to get steamed about. They are meaningless. Look for polls from Nevada, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Margaret Steinfels

I read the New Yorker article by Jane Mayer. What I found both fascinating and frightening was Trump's inability or refusal to sit down and talk. He hired the guy, he agreed to the terms, and then he wouldn't/couldn't sit down to be interviewed for the project.

If I got Mayer's report right, Schwartz already had half of the very large advance. Schwartz had to follow Trump around and create the narrative. So was/is Trump ADD, a spoiled rich guy, a sociopath? Something's not normal. But maybe that's what many supporters are looking for in their next president.

Mark Gaughan

I agree with you. I do think that Hillary Clinton may deliver on some domestic issues. (Some folks here may not want her to.) The problem that I have with her is that she is totally out of her league when it comes to foreign policy. She never should have been Secretary of State. President Obama was/is also out of his league when it comes to foreign policy, hence his record.
So: Who to vote for?


well, you asked!

Trey N

She "was part of" the entire NY political establishment doing their jobs and taking care of their constituents who were unfortunate enough to be victims of the 911 tragedy. Laudable, but not extraordinary -- all of them were doing what was called for and expected of them as part of their duties as public servants. This shouldn't be anything to crow about.

Trey N

"they are more useful then useless"

Which is why they rank above lawyer/politicians on the scale of life on this planet, LeaNder!

I'm struggling to think of a lower life form. I'm sure there must be one....


different clue,

If they didn't expect this level of dishonesty then Sanders recruited naive staff. He ran against super predator Clinton and the taco bowl DNC. His opponent and her spouse are pols who wield identity politics to compensate for a lack of commonality with the unwashed masses.

It is fine by me should the Clintons continue taking Sanders supporters for granted; they deserve to lose. Just don't expect Sanders to rescind his endorsement or run as a 3rd party candidate.

Daniel Nicolas

Most Americans don't ~want~ to care about foreign policy. But our government has become increasingly entangled in foreign matters outside our interests that often haunt us at home.


Margaret, Glass - Steagall is not some minor side issue as you seem to so carelessly suggest by your opining that it "maybe, or maybe not" had something to do with the 2008 financial crash. It had EVERYTHING to do with the crash because it allowed the banks to conflate the Two separate objectives of banking and investment.

Banking - the overriding requirement is prudential control to minimize risk to depositors.

Investment - the requirement is return on investment commensurate with risk.

You cannot do both at once, but shysters can make very large bonuses telling you that you can.

Glass - Steagall enshrined in law the prohibition on banks doing exactly that, as they continue to this day.


I think Jack is the closest to being correct here. It's easy to think that most people are interested in politics because we self-select to participate in blogs like this one. But pretty much every poll I've seen shows that most people just don't pay that much attention to politics and don't investigate policies, economics or history in any kind of detail.


Regarding Glass-Steagall, the separation of commercial and investbanking, and the financial crisis...

Wasn't one of the main causes for the financial crisis the mortgage crisis? Didn't that happen in large part because commercial banks originated mortgages with the intent of immediately packaging and reselling them as investment products? -- thus the commercial bank issuing the mortgage makes a small quick profit and then has no long term exposure the the mortgage it just issued -- and so no incentive to care much about the underlying risk?

Doesn't it make sense that the mortgage crisis was directly enabled by commercial banks securitizing their products and selling them in the much more loosely regulated investment-banking world?

Trey N

I have tried twice today to respond re this list you linked to, Mark, and neither one has shown up. I don't know if its typepad problems again or what, but I'm not up to going for a "third time's the charm" effort.

rakesh wahi

"Trump is an entrepreneur who has demonstrated his ability to build businesses, organize projects and provide jobs for people "
very hard to accept this, the culture made him a celebrity at a very younbg age and he has lived off of it. United airlines changed its name at one time and he used his celebrity status to issue some crazy statement about their name to make money by mnaipulation of stock, he has not built anything but because of his alleged smarts based on publicity, he gets the rubes to pay above market price , he buys marquee properties at unsustainable prices and sells them off at a loss ( re Plaza hotel, Trump casinos etc etc) with the losses taken by other people. Not paying the contractors is part of it and the reson he no longer build is that no Bank will lend him money no contractor will work for him without money up front.


These days, (eg. Flynt Water Crisis), an Elected Official actually doing their jobs for their constituents, rather than just sitting there like a bump on a log until their pension kicks in, is rare and praiseworthy.

Sam Peralta

This NY Times article discusses the electoral college challenges for Trump.


rakesh wahi

I did not see this post before responding to your earlier one. You have your mind made up and it is pointless to expect reason. However the readers can draw their own conclusions about the deal making ability of Donald the great. There is not a single marquee property that he has bought at a below market or market price , all his buildings have been built at way above normal construction prices - all based on "greater fool theory " , he has always found people willing to pay more than what things are worth because of the "fame". let me know in five years how his properties fare.

Margaret Steinfels

To Walrus @6:53
Glass-Steagall: What did I carelessly suggest? Bear-Stearn, Lehmann Brothers, and AIG, major factors in the crisis, would not have been Glass-Steagall regulated. The subprime mortgage crisis was not primarily a bank crisis but a crisis of mortgage orginators, such as Countrywide Financial. I say "may or may not," because as far as I can tell had it been in place, there would still have been a crisis because these were not banks. Therefore, reinstating it unless recalibrated to today's conditions "may or may not" prevent the next crisis....

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad