Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Published with permission from Media Matters for America.

Like cigarette smokers who have admitted they have a nicotine problem but can’t stop puffing, can journalists who have already admitted they use a weaker standard to score Republican nominee Donald Trump make a clean break while grading the Republican’s debate performance next week?

By all indications, reporters know using the double standard is wrong, and that it’s not okay to demand Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton regularly clear higher hurdles than her opponent. They know adopting different standards to grade presidential candidates disregards rules of campaign fair play for the press.

Yet even though the double standard has been widely acknowledged in recent weeks, there’s still a likelihood it will be employed for debate analysis. That’s how strong the allure seems to be.

Already we’re hearing rumblings that Clinton has more to lose at the debate, and that if Trump manages to not insult large portions of the electorate, the event will represent a victory for him. What’s doubly concerning is that Trump already appears to be actively trying to intimidate the debate moderators in hopes they’ll go easy on him. (According to network news executives, moderators Lester Holt from NBC and Fox’s Chris Wallace were chosen to “appease” Trump.)

If Trump bullies the moderators and the press uses a weaker standard to grade him, then the debates are no longer fair campaign fights because a media-sanctioned ‘victory’ for Clinton will be that much harder to obtain.

“He won’t have to win policy arguments or outshine Clinton’s qualifications – anyone who’s been watching this race will already know he can’t do either,” noted U.S. News & World Report contributor Cary Gibson, who noted that Trump is “generally held to a lower bar than Clinton and this dynamic is likely to prevail during the debates.” She continued, “But if he makes it through the debates with no major gaffes and his composure intact, his performance could get high marks anyway.”

Must be nice.

And from CNN’s Dana Bash:

But I do think that the stakes are much higher in this debate and all the debates for Hillary Clinton because the expectations are higher for her because she is a seasoned politician, she is a seasoned debater. Yes, we saw Donald Trump in the primaries debate for the first time, but he is a first-time politician. So for lots of reasons, maybe it’s not fair but it’s the way it is, the onus is on her.

Fact: Republicans opted to nominate a political novice as their nominee, knowing the possible drawbacks. There’s no reason the Republican nominee should then get special treatment from the press for being a political novice.

Meanwhile, I certainly can’t recall any presidential election where so many journalists conceded, in real time, the double standard at play in the unfolding coverage. In the past, journalists almost always denied that one candidate was being treated differently — being graded easier — than the other. To make that admission was to admit a complete unfairness in the coverage.

But this year the acknowledgments keep coming simply because the double standard in play has been so obvious:

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Donald Trump is held to a lower standard. He just is.”

Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin: “Trump is doing things that if Clinton did, she would be hit a lot harder. We shouldn’t do that.”

New York Times’ Maggie Haberman: “The bar has been lowered for Trump repeatedly.”

CNN’s Brian Stelter: “It is true that Trump is held to a different standard than Clinton.”

The evidence of this is everywhere. When The Washington Post reported that the Trump Foundation had to pay a fine to the IRS for making an illegal $25,000 donation to a PAC supporting the re-election campaign of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, broadcast news networks devoted just a third as much time to the story as they did to a recent flawed Associated Press story on the Clinton Foundation that proved no ethical misconduct.

Meanwhile, Clinton this month has been regularly attacked in the press for not being transparent, when in fact she’s been far more transparent via personal disclosures than Trump has been.

And recall how last week The New York Times reported on Trump’s proposal for child-care and maternity leave plan and noted, “But in selling his case, Mr. Trump stretched the truth, saying that his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, has no such plan of her own and ‘never will.’”

Trump didn’t “stretch the truth.” He flat out lied: Clinton does have a plan of her own and she unveiled it last year.

Concerns about the media embracing a double standard for debate coverage were rekindled following the NBC’s televised presidential forum earlier this month, and how commentators often rewarded Trump for doing far less than Clinton. The event was hosted Matt Lauer, who came under withering criticism for the drastically different approaches he took to interviewing each candidate that night.

“Lauer’s gentle questioning of Trump — after grilling Clinton over her use of the private email server and her 2003 vote in favor of the Iraq War — is but one example of television journalists treating the GOP nominee with kid gloves,” noted Politico in a piece headlined, “Why Donald Trump Gets A Pass.”

But again, the media schizophrenia remains ever present: Just days before, Politico used a sliding scale for analyzing the NBC forum. Politico stressed both candidates did poorly because “she look[ed] uncertain while he sound[ed] uninformed.” And “Clinton wobbled on style. Trump stumbled on substance.” (Why not hold both accountable for style and substance?)

So one day after Politico clearly graded the two candidates using a different scale, Politico conceded the media uses a different scale when grading the two candidates.

Please ditch this for the debate.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 389

211 responses to “Ditch The Trump Double Standard For The Debates”

  1. Beethoven says:

    This is ridiculous. Imagine that two people are being asked how they would perform an open heart surgery, because they are being considered for the position of chief heart surgeon at a hospital. One of them has been through medical school and residency training in heart surgery and has several years of experience as a heart surgeon. The other took business courses in college and has never had any training or experience in any kind of surgery. But if the experienced heart surgeon makes a slight mistake in the procedure that is to be followed, the judges strongly criticize him (or her), while if the other person demonstrates total ignorance about surgical procedure, he is excused as “an inexperienced outsider” who is bringing a fresh perspective to surgery.
    The Clinton and Trump Foundations are as good an example as any, and there are many others, for how the media has slanted the coverage. The Clinton Foundation has received the highest rating from CharityWatch, including its highest rating for transparency, while the Trump Foundation has received a mediocre rating from CharityWatch, in large part because of its lack of transparency. Hillary Clinton is condemned as “crooked Hillary” because she is alleged to have made millions off of the Clinton Foundation and sold influence in return for contributions, even though thorough investigation has proved those claims totally false and without merit. On the other hand, there is proof that the Trump Foundation made an illegal campaign contribution to the Florida Attorney General, and that soon afterwards the Florida Attorney General decided not to pursue fraud charges against Trump University. But the media has saturated its coverage with criticism of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, while paying little attention to the highly questionable actions of the Trump Foundation.

    • FireBaron says:

      You really have to understand the differences the press feels about these two.
      First – Hillary has been hated by the NY and DC Press Corps since Day 1. Why? Because she refuses to kiss their collective butts and lavish undue praise on them simply because they are the DC and NY Press Corps. This is most seen in coverage by the New York Times and Washington Post.
      Second – Teflon Donnie is in live with microphones and cameras, and as long as he brings in ratings, they will bow to him and never think of challenging him regardless of how outrageous his claims are.
      In the earliest GOP Debates had Ted Cruz not played patty-cake with Teflon Donnie, and had taken him to task for belittling and berating his opponents ON STAGE at the first debate, then we probably would be dealing with a B-Lister (as they had no A-List candidates and more than likely not named “Bush”) instead of this blustering buffoon as the nominee.

      • latebloomingrandma says:

        Well, if Trump wins, I hope the collective media who did his bidding will be happy when he starts censoring them and we end up with Pravda.
        “Profiles in Cowardice” . Banned from the New York Times book list.

      • The lucky one says:

        As bad as Trump is I shudder at the thought of a Cruz presidency.

        • Daniel Wright says:

          But you relish a dictatorship under Hillary?………… SAD.

          • The lucky one says:

            So I see you’ve taken on Trump’s speech style……funny. There will be no more of a dictatorship under Hilary than we have had for the past 50 years or so, But yes I’d prefer a secular dictatorship over a theocratic one like we would have with Cruz.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            My style is my style. I’m 65 not 18. Now I see that you are truly “the lucky one” Cruz is out. I just thought I would inform you in case you have been in a coma the last four plus months.

          • The lucky one says:

            I’m also 65. My reference to Cruz was to a post by firebaron above. No one is the lucky one in this election. We’re screwed with either Trump or Clinton, just a bit more so with an incompetent like Donnie.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            That last part is a matter of opinion. Trump will strengthen the military lower taxes for everyone and protect our constitutional rights by appointing constitutional conservative judges and justices . Hillary will do the opposite. I can’t see how anyone who knows these these facts can believe that Hillary is a better choice. You see Trump as incompetent. Why, I don’t know. He is successful at business and sees the harm that Obama has done to the USA,The same harm I see. Hillary will do the same {she promised to] but on steroids. He sees the globalist agenda that most are unaware of and wants to keep American sovereignty intact. I think you underestimate him.

          • Beethoven says:

            If you are so willing to believe Trump’s promises, why didn’t you sign up for his Trump University courses. You know he promised to make everyone who took those courses rich through the real estate business that he claims made him a multibillionaire. Of course, he also had to file bankruptcy a few times because of his “skills” in the real estate business.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            Real estate never interested me. It’s funny how you lefties can disbelieve Trump and still believe the lies of the Democrat party. The party that has promised to eliminate poverty for the last 51 years but instead has created more poor people that ever before. If that is really your picture then you should have seen through their lies by now. Most people get wiser with age,some get more and more gullible. You are in the latter category.

          • dpaano says:

            Again, anyone who runs up almost a billion dollar business loss is NOT a good businessman in my opinion. I’m sure there are other businessmen out there that would agree!!! Business losses are a part of doing business, but one in this amount is downright ridiculous!!!

          • The lucky one says:

            Of course it’s an opinion, any prognostication is by definition an opinion. Ask yourself this how can Trump “lower taxes for everyone” and yet strengthen the military or build his wall or anything else. We are in debt. The money has to come from somewhere and I do believe him when he says he will lower taxes on the wealthy so where do you think it will come from? The poor don’t have any money so the middle class will get socked once again. It’s absurd to think that any politician can or would lower taxes for everyone.

            Why do i see him as incompetent? Well listening to him speak he displays no understanding of world affairs or much of anything outside his purview of real estate development. He has at least 4 bankruptcies and although all politicians including Clinton lie and or tweak the truth he seems pathological in his need to distort everything to fit his image. He lies about things that are easily proven false and then doubles down when confronted with the truth. He’s like the 5 year old standing over the broken cookie jar on the floor claiming that he didn’t do it. even if you watched him drop the jar.

            Your globalist agenda is just a myth trying to explain the take over by multinational corporations and trump will certainly not offer any resistance to that. he’s one of them.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            Then vote for Hillary I don’t have the time to go over all your erroneous assumptions.

          • The lucky one says:

            Clearly you don’t because you have not done so yet at all. Start with your own mistaken assumptions. that will keep you busy for a while. Hint: You won’t find the truth on Breitbart.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            I have pointed out several. Your denial just shows how in the pocket of the uber-left you are. Call yourself what you will. I see through your lies.

      • Daniel Wright says:

        Teflon Donny? What a farce. Hillary has committed felonies,treason and is responsible for at the least four deaths and she is within a hair’s breath of being president.

    • Daniel Wright says:

      You are right. A highly trained surgeon is the best choice. However one with a drinking problem or one with a god complex is one to steer clear of. One like Hillary.

      • Beethoven says:

        Where did you ever get the idea that Hillary Clinton has a drinking problem or a god complex? From some looney right-wing talk radio host or looney right-wing web site? Suppose a lawyer sued the highly trained surgeon for malpractice and lost in court, then decided to spread unfounded rumors that the surgeon was an alcoholic and an incompetent surgeon, and managed to get lots of people to believe those rumors and spread them around. Would you choose to believe those rumors instead of the surgeons who had worked with that maligned surgeon for years and considered him one of the most competent and reliable surgeons they knew and said so repeatedly?

        • Daniel Wright says:

          You are not very familiar with metaphor are you? When did I say “Hillary has a drinking problem”. I did say Hillary has a god complex. That is because she does. Please learn a higher form than elementary school English.

    • dpaano says:

      So true, and now the State of New York has banned Trump from requesting campaign donations in that state based on their investigation into his “alleged” Foundation! Personally, I think the Foundation has turned out to be Trump’s personal checkbook!! People pay money into it thinking it will be used for good, but in the end, it’s being used for evil!

  2. Dominick Vila says:

    Suggesting that one candidate should be subjected to greater scrutiny because of her qualifications and experience, and that we should let the other slide because he has no relevant experience, knowledge, and is prone to infantile rhetoric, only confirms what should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. One is ready to be President on day one, the other is totally unqualified.
    I would not be surprised if Trump comes out smelling like a rose after the debates, not because he is likely to demonstrate knowledge or a vision, but because he will engage in patriotic rhetoric, bravado, and innuendo to appeal to his supporters. The fact that he may not bother to answer questions will be perceived as a sign of strength in his quest to fight the “establishment”. Hillary, on the other hand, is likely to endure another drilling about e-mails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation, an institution that, as opposed to the private Trump Foundation, has not paid bribes to elected officials to get away with fraud, or used charitable, tax free, contributions to buy politicians.
    Trump supporters will claim victory before the debates start, regardless of what their Messiah says or does. Heck, in the minds of his cultists, he will win if he does not show up!

  3. Mama Bear says:

    I seems to me that most members of the press are afraid of Trump. My questions is….why.

    • FT66 says:

      It is very simple answer: COWARDS.

    • Dan S says:

      We’ve already seen that if baby ???? Donnie feels he hasn’t been treated fairly he’ll pick up his marbles &,stay home. Or in this case of skipping a debate hosted by Megyn Kelly who he has upset ???? with had a fundraising event for Veterans who almost got stiffed until he was called on it finally. He’s been known to take away press credentials from those who ask tough questions & he’ll have none of that. I say call his bluff & let him try to blacklist those who ask the really important questions. I’m still waiting to see those tax returns he has

      • Mama Bear says:

        I think if he skips a debate he does it at his own peril.

        • Dominick Vila says:

          I’ll be very surprised if Trump does that. For him, the debates is another opportunity to display his narcissism, arrogance, immaturity, and the prejudice and hatred his supporters want to hear. As for the moderators, who cares? Trump will ignore any questions that don’t reflect positively on his image, and will turn those who challenge him into “bleeding” evil doers, to the delight of his supporters.
          That’s the problem Hillary is going to face. Half of the electorate is not interested in substance or a vision. What they want include over simplifications of important issues, infantile solutions, and expressions of extreme hate.

        • Dan S says:

          Agreed. I’m sure Gary Johnson & Jill Stein would happily debate Hillary if Trump is a no show

        • idamag says:

          No, he was right. He could shoot and kill someone in Times Square and they would still love him.

    • latebloomingrandma says:

      Maybe he has “files” like J. Edgar Hoover. You know, for blackmail purposes.

      • dpaano says:

        No, he just threatens to sue anyone that says anything about him that he doesn’t like!! Lawsuits cost money for everyone and not everyone has the money to spend to fight Trump!

  4. Jinmichigan says:

    You have to suspect that the management of these large media outlets have driven the reporting to this disgraceful point. trump does drive ratings, their is no question about it.

  5. charleo1 says:

    First we must acknowledge the fact the cable news press is held hostage to ratings. No secret there. And the once widely respected paper press, an invaluable source of hard news, is falling into the abyss of financial extinction. With no answer in sight to prevent it’s imminent death. So at this time and place in American politics, which nearly all would have thought inconceivable. It seems millions of Americans have not the slightest problem with electing a novice President. Who is also clearly an unrepentant racist, liar, swindler, and more than a casual dabbler, and believer in the fringe conspiracy World that abounds in hinterlands of the internet. As one fellow ask the other. Who woulda thunk it of the American people? Not me, that’s for sure. But now we find ourselves in truly uncharted waters without the compass of a strong autonomous press. That is held hostage more by changing markets, than adhering to any concept of its intended role of speaking truth to power. That power in this case, according to the polls is roughly half of the American Electorate. Which other industry polls show will change the channel on a dime if they perceive the reporter is being too hard on the subject. This being especially true of the Right. Where Fox’s campaign to discredit the main body press in favor of their own slanted alternative reality, has been years in the making, and wildly successful. While other Left leaning venues most prominently in talk radio, but television also, have faired far less well, or faltered altogether. Facts often being far more mundane, and hard to grasp, than colorful conspiracies, talk of apocalypse, or Armageddon, and raunchy politically motivated faux scandals. (My opinion)

  6. FT66 says:

    I was very, very, very astonished last night watching Chris Matthew on MSNBC with his guests, Eugene Robbinson, Howard Dean to mention the few, were previewing the past debates, without any shame Chris Matthew highlighted only one sentence which were remarkable from former candidates and are still remembered from those debates. Do these people know what they are doing? What those remarkable sentences have to do in helping voters? Should Trump or Hillary pull a remarkable sentence and be taken as a winner and ready to do the work voters will assign them to do? This kind of politics have to stop. We don’t need these kind of reporting of misleading voters. It is really a big shame to watch people like Chris Matthew and Eugene Robinson who had a very long experience in reporting can’t figure out what benefits voters and what doesn’t. We want to see and judge candidates in coming debates on their knowledge in different issues and their plans.

  7. tbs says:

    Article is really one sided and full of holes!
    First off Matt Lauer did a great job and was not easy on either candidate!
    Trouble is Hillary looked bad because she did not have the questions beforehand (as she usually has) to answer the questions! Boy how she went bats because she could not answer the questions without her help around! Humph, shows how she cannot handle being President to answer spur of the moment questions from dignitaries.
    Now I understand Hilly (not Trump) has the questions ahead, of this next debate, and that is NOT fair. But am sure you all think it is, as all liberals think cheating, lying or any way you can do it is fair to win!
    Be nice to play fair and be honest for a change!

    • LCR78 says:

      The point of the article was different standards used by the media to grade the candidates performance. One is successful if he hasn’t insulted someone in the past 24 hours, the other only if she has held a news conference.

    • latebloomingrandma says:

      No—he interrupted Hilary multiple times while she was trying to answer the question. He did none of that for Trump! He- who- must- not- be- interrupted, as it would be “unfair” .

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        You just know if Hillary was the one who did the interrupting, those boys would have plenty to criticize. Women in the US today are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. But this some men call, “Equality?”

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      So let me guess..Your Daddy taught you that so long as you were rude, discourteous and interrupting a woman, that was just fine and dandy? Figures. And did your daddy Mutton Chops also tell you that men who act like this are morons? If not, let me be the first.

      You know damn well why you men rudely interrupt. You do not want to hear facts or truth. All you have to do to prove this is to watch Ryan, McConnell or any of the attack dogs you seem to adore on CNN in Congressional sessions.

      They pull the same BS you approve…Ask a question and before the person has a chance to answer, interrupt as if it’s an interrogation and you are Head Honcho of Upper Butt Crack.

      • Karen_in_KC says:

        Exactly Eleanor! My thoughts exactly! Well Said.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          One reason I find Republican men so bombastically rude is when I see them deliberately refusing to allow others to answer the questions the Republicans asked in the first place.

          Last week on CNN, I watched the Republican chair literally and rudely interrupt one of the Joint Chiefs during the session on Veterans benefits. The general sat there with the medals he earned over a lifetime career being forced to endure the rudeness and interrogation of a twit half his age with NO real claim to fame other than being paid to dismantle goverment by the Koch boys.

    • jmprint says:

      As Secretary of State she proved you wrong, but since you live in a basket, where you are not allowed to have other views, and the brain malfunctions. It’s not fair that Kellyanne won’t be holding Trumps hand, and Bannor can’t write his answer. I can hardly wait for the fool to show himself one more time.

    • Independent1 says:

      “First off Matt Lauer did a great job and was not easy on either candidate!”

      When the lies start on the 1st 2 lines – the whole post is a flat-out lie!!

      Matt Lauer Failed The Moderator Test

      Matt Lauer, the “Today” show host, flunked in primetime. And his failure was even more remarkable because he had the very information he needed to succeed.

      During the first half of an hourlong event, Hillary Clinton pointed out to Lauer that Republican nominee Donald Trump had expressed support for the Iraq War prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion, even though he’s falsely claimed throughout his entire candidacy to have been staunchly opposed to it.

      “My opponent was for the war in Iraq,” Clinton said at the forum simulcast on NBC and MSNBC. “He says he wasn’t. You can ― you can go back and look at the record. He supported it. He told Howard Stern he supported it.”

      But when Trump took the stage in the second half of the event, he cited his criticism of the war in an August 2004 Esquire story as evidence he opposed the invasion, which actually began 16 months earlier. In a room full of Iraq War veterans, Lauer didn’t challenge Trump’s false claim.

      And this:

      Matt Lauer Fields Storm of Criticism Over Clinton-Trump Forum

      Charged with overseeing a live prime-time forum with Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton — widely seen as a dry run of sorts for the coming presidential debates — Mr. Lauer found himself besieged on Wednesday evening by critics of all political stripes, who accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness
      and even sexism in his handling of the event.

      Trump stormed onstage in his familiar motor-mouth style, often talking over Mr. Lauer and declining to directly answer many of his questions. At times, Mr. Lauer — who has conducted fewer adversarial interviews with Mr. Trump than his colleagues on NBC’s political desk — appeared flummoxed by his subject’s linguistic feints.

      Drawing particular ire was the moment when Mr. Trump asserted, with his usual confidence: “I was totally against the war in Iraq.”

      In fact, Mr. Trump initially said he supported the war, a point that Mrs. Clinton had raised earlier in the evening, citing an interview that Mr. Trump had given to Howard Stern. But Mr. Lauer left the assertion unchallenged, zipping along to his next question about Mr. Trump’s professed tendency to “say things that you later regret.”

    • Independent1 says:

      Keep these comments in mind there lowlife: Charged with overseeing a live prime-time forum with Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton — widely seen as a dry run of sorts for the coming presidential debates — Mr. Lauer found himself besieged on Wednesday evening by critics of all political stripes, who accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness and even sexism in his handling of the event.

      The pathological lies that always spew from your mouth don’t resonate well on the NM blogging forum.

    • The lucky one says:

      “Be nice to play fair and be honest for a change!” Yes and be sure your hero gets the memo because those concepts are foreign to him.

  8. idamag says:

    Trump has definitely been held to a different standard than Hillary by the press. He gets to choose his venue, questions and moderator. Bully for him. Not misspelled. He made his billions in the gambling venue. His lies mean nothing. He took out bankruptcy four times, stiffing those he owed money to. He buys a new wife when the old one starts to age a little. He has made bigoted remarks. He has lied. The law of supply is demand and the press is what the people accept and demand.

  9. Karen says:

    Double standards have always been part of the political handbook. The question I would like to be able to answer yes to is, are there still enough discerning Americans left to see through the bluster

    • plc97477 says:

      We used to have laws to keep our media honest but the gotp has for many years scrapped our laws and they are now gone.

      • Karen says:

        A return to ethics in journalism would be nice.

        • The lucky one says:

          A return to ethics in our society at large would be even better.

          • Karen says:

            I just finished watching a video of Elizabeth Warren tearing up one side and down the other of Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo and it’s no wonder men fear women in politics. Talk about a strong sense of ethics.

          • The lucky one says:

            I too applaud Warren’s efforts but take issue with your implication that women are inherently anymore ethical than men. Power corrupts both sexes equally in my experience.

          • Karen says:

            You may be right, but I’d say by varying degrees. Perhaps I should have said, unethical men in politics, of which there are many, fear ethical women. I know that you are referencing Hillary and I may question her political tactics but I’m comfortable with her ethical system.

          • The lucky one says:

            ” unethical men in politics, of which there are many, fear ethical women” that I fully agree with and they fear the ethical men as well. Unfortunately there are few ethical congresspeople of either gender.

            Ethics in a public official is as much about appearances. Clinton’s privileged access highly paid speeches to banksters certainly gives the appearance of unethical behavior for a presidential candidate whether or not any unethical behavior has occurred or will occur. Fortunately for her Trump’s lack of ethics is very obvious.

          • Karen says:

            And our ethical responsibility lies in judging that which can be proven against that which is conjecture.

          • The lucky one says:

            Trump’s ethical lapses don’t need recounting here. It would be easier to list his ethical actions if indeed there are any.

            But that doesn’t mean that Hillary is ethical just because her opponent reeks so badly. What is indisputable is that she gave privileged access highly paid speeches to banksters as she was preparing to run for the presidency. That is proven. That is unethical.

          • Karen says:

            That borders on opinion . I view it differently and would like to see what her speeches were about before I judge them unethical. I’ll leave it at that
            but thanks for the debate

          • The lucky one says:

            “would like to see what her speeches were about” But you never will, just like we will never see Trump’s tax returns. It’s fair to assume in both cases that they are hiding something they prefer not to be made public. If they were not running for president it wouldn’t be an issue.

            Thank you as well. Civil discussions here are becoming a rarity.

          • Karen says:

            You know as well as I do that Trump’s taxes should be a matter of record just like they have been for previous presidential candidates. I don’t recall candidates having to release transcripts of speeches made before they declared their candidacy. We know which one would be more damaging. The problem with comment boards are that we can go round and round explaining our thoughts and get nowhere but dizzy. Hey, you have a great day and let’s enjoy a beautiful fall day. I mailed in my vote yesterday, did my civic duty and life goes on.

          • The lucky one says:

            Agree with all of that except “We know which one would be more damaging.” Actually we don’t know which is why both sides are asking for disclosure by the other side. I really don’t think there would be any surprises on either side. Hillary’s detractors would find confirmation of what they already assume is true and Trump’s detractors would find the same.

            You’re also right about the round and round so i’ll say g’bye on this thread.

            Enjoy the day.

          • dpaano says:

            Exactly!!! Just what I said above! If we need to see Hillary’s speeches, then I would ask to see Trump’s also…..along with his tax returns (since Hillary and Bill have already released many years of their returns).

          • idamag says:

            Has it ever occurred to you, to see if you can find out what they were about?

          • The lucky one says:

            Sure, but since they are not available, except a fake, I haven’t been able to do so and honestly haven’t tried lately. Point me in the direction of the transcripts if you can and I will be appreciative.

          • dpaano says:

            According to friends of mine who work in Wall Street….most of her speeches were about women in the workplace and were attended mostly by women. There were no overtly political speeches given by Hillary. Secondly her speeches were well BEFORE she registered to run for the presidency.

          • dpaano says:

            Why should she HAVE to provide copies of her speeches? Have we EVER asked any presidential candidate for copies of speeches they gave when they weren’t running for president? However, in the past 40 years, every presidential candidate has provided their tax returns voluntarily. So, my question is…..what is Trump hiding? I think his tax returns are more important for us to see than Hillary’s speeches.

          • The lucky one says:

            I disagree. I think it would be useful to see both but neither are mandatory. For me it’s not a big deal because I don’t expect to see any big surprises. Banksters know what they can expect in return for Clinton’s lavish payoff and we all know Trump doesn’t pay taxes, cheats his suppliers and has business entanglements with regimes hostile to the US. If i was wrong about any of that the party involved would have provided the materials to debunk my claims.

          • dpaano says:

            What??? Not sure what you mean by Hillary giving “privileged access highly paid speeches to banksters as she was preparing to run for the presidency.” These speeches were given WELL before she registered to run for president. Also, most of the speeches were to women about women in the workplace…..they were not political in nature! I have friends who worked in Wall Street and who have attended a couple of Hillary’s speeches, and they said she never brought up ANYTHING of a political nature in ANY of her speeches.

          • The lucky one says:

            C’mon, you don’t really believe she and they didn’t know she was running when she gave the speeches, do you?

            Your other assertions are just hearsay. You can believe them if you want but I see no reason to think they were anything other than a down payment on services to be rendered. Most presidents wait until they leave office to get their reward from their corporate masters with absurd book deals and well paid meaningless speeches but Hillary is too old for that. She knows she needs to cash in now.

          • dpaano says:

            Yes, actually I do. She gave those speeches, I believe, before she was Secretary of State and WELL before she had made any decision that we’re aware of that she would be running for president in 2016. As for my “assertions,” not sure what you mean since I have many friends working in Wall Street, many of whom attended Hillary’s speeches. They clearly stated that NONE of her speeches were political in nature and were mostly about women in the workplace and breaking the “glass ceiling.” And, if you fact check, you’d know that Trump has done just as much to bolster Wall Street as she’s accused of doing!

          • The lucky one says:

            Check your dates. Her big fee speeches to Morgan Stanley, Citibank and other banksters were after her tenure as SOS. It’s speculation of course but I think it’s naive to assume she didn’t know she was going to run for president when she made the speeches.

            I don’t give hearsay any weight whether it is anti or pro Clinton. I don’t know what she said, neither do you, but I do know her and Bill’s speeches made them multi-millionaires and tat many of the fees came from the very same people that crashed the economy and in some cases are guilty of money laundering. I don’t think the speech transcripts would show she said anything improper. What they would reveal is that she made no attempt to rein in or criticize their predatory and inappropriate behavior.

          • dpaano says:

            I don’t think its naïve at all, and it’s “speculation” on your part that she didn’t know. We have NO idea what was in her head between her stint as Secretary of State and her registering to run for the presidency! Unless you’re a mind reader, I don’t agree with you. Again, as I said, most of her speeches were about women in the workplace…..nothing to do with politics! And I DO know some of what she said because I have many friends who attended her speeches. I even attended one here in my city, which was very enlightening and attended by many women that she’s helped throughout the years! As for the money, again, most of the speaking fees went to the Clinton Foundation and NOT in their personal pockets!

          • The lucky one says:

            Apparently there was more than just talk “about women in the workplace” in Clinton’s privileged access speeches to banksters.


          • dpaano says:

            I’m sure there was, but most of them were directed towards women in the workplace.

          • The lucky one says:

            I respectfully submit that neither of us know whether “most of them were directed towards women in the workplace.” is accurate or not.

          • dpaano says:

            You’re probably right, but the ones that my friends attended were about women in the workplace. Personally, sometimes things said in speeches can be taken totally out of context unless you hear the ENTIRE speech, and I can’t say that this didn’t happen. I’m sitting on the fence on this one…’s much like the bible and how it’s interpreted by various religions. It’s all in what you hear and believe.

          • idamag says:

            Do you have a problem with telling the truth and the whole truth. Clinton was asked by the banking community to speak to women in banking as a motivational thing. Are you saying that no other former states person ever ever took money for giving speeches? It is only a Clinton thing. I’m surprised that they haven’t checked the brand of toilet paper she uses and find something evil in that. Research how many speeches bush gave and how much he received for them. Try all the other people who have been in government.

          • The lucky one says:

            A problem with the truth, no not at all, but I’m not running for president. Your other questions are just dissembling. Yes many others have given speeches for outrageous payments as compensation for quid pro quo while in office, Bush, Reagan, B Clinton etc.. It is unethical and should be prohibited or at the least deducted from their pension. But with them the harm is already done but H Clinton has received payments, I believe, for services yet to be rendered or maybe just to allow the status quo of bankster crime to continue unimpeded. We know that Obama did nothing significant in that regard.

            The speech you refer to was one among many. Maybe you should be asking why just this one? Why not either release all or stick with releasing none at all? It was purely a PR ploy. “Here, see how innocuous this speech was. Now take my word for it that the others were similar.”

            “Are you saying that no other former states person ever ever took money for giving speeches?” No but I’m not aware of any who did so any where near the degree of Clinton in the run-up to their declaration of candidacy, a declaration that everyone expected.

          • dpaano says:

            But you DO know that most of the monies she and Bill received from giving speeches did NOT go into their pockets….most of the monies went into the Clinton Foundation and was used for many charitable causes in many third world countries and in the U.S.? I doubt that many other politicians giving speeches have ever used their money for charitable projects.

          • The lucky one says:

            How do you know that is true? What I do know is that when Bill left office they claimed to be broke but now they have a combined net worth of $111 million dollars. Possibly they have given some to charity but apparently they have also been well compensated for……. You fill it in.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            Why don’t you research how much money Bush took from foreign sources in exchange for influence in our government?

          • dpaano says:

            And I’m sure that Trump has made speeches that he’s been extravagantly paid for!

          • idamag says:

            I agree. If we want a negative example of women, we can look at Michelle Bauchmann and Wasilla White Trash.

          • The lucky one says:

            Absolutely, or Diane Feinstein.

          • dpaano says:

            I don’t agree with your calling Diane Feinstein a negative example.

          • The lucky one says:

            “California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is back in the news as the giant real estate investment firm run by her husband, Rich Blum, is possibly poised to earn as much as $1 billion in commissions from selling U.S. Postal Service buildings across the country.

            Several years ago, Feinstein said that she exerted no influence in the process that led to Blum’s company, CBRE Group, then the world’s largest commercial real estate services firm, obtaining an exclusive contract to market USPS facilities—as part of a larger federal effort to reduce the deficit.

            Feinstein dismissed the conflict of interest allegations at the time, which were followed by numerous investigative reports criticizing the deal. The USPS Inspector General issued a report saying the contract was not how it previously sold properties and was unlikely to reduce USPS costs. California-based investigative reporters found that CBRE was selling properties below market value to clients, which means those buyers could likely profit if they resold them.

            “CBRE has been paid commissions as high as 6 percent by the Postal Service for representing both the seller and the buyer in many of the negotiations, thereby raising serious questions as to whether CBRE was doing its best to obtain the highest price possible for the Postal Service,” reported northern California’s East Bay Express.

            But now, new reports are saying that CBRE—where Blum was a member of the board and chairman from 2001 to 2014—stands to make possibly $1 billion in commissions from the sale of 56 buildings across the country that are expected to yield upwards of $19 billion.

            Whether or not those profit estimates prove to be accurate, this deal is a classic example of what’s legal and corrupt in government contracting. Even if Feinstein’s word is true—that she never lobbied or intervened with the USPS on behalf of her husband—the political world in Washington is like a village where longtime players know everyone else, and favors are implicitly given and taken without explicit approval.”


          • dpaano says:

            You took the words right out of my mouth! This country has lost any hint of ethical behavior in anything….business, politics, etc. It’s pretty sad that we’ve fallen so low when it comes to this subject!

      • idamag says:

        You are right. We had government regulations on the Media and lying was unacceptable and a person could get in lots of trouble for lying. The rules for candidates was equal time in the media. Wake up, America, this is your freedoms that have been superseded by false journalism. It is a threat to our Democracy.

      • Daniel Wright says:

        What are you talking about. Freedom of the press is absolute in politics. The only restriction is in the private sector where malice must be proven in order to find against a journalist. Where did you get it that the GOP destroyed the fairness in the media. If it was really them then they shot themselves in the foot. The media is so in the Democrats pocket only a blind man could miss it.

      • dpaano says:

        And it doesn’t help that much of our media, both TV and news medias, are owned by the RW!!! There are very few newspapers and magazines that are nonpartisan. The only one I know if is The Week, which I subscribe to….it’s is VERY nonpartisan….giving information from both sides of the coin!!! Other than that, I see no other magazines or newspapers as good.

  10. LCR78 says:

    How long does Trump have to be around before he no longer is a novice? Also, he seems to be very skilled at playing games that generate plenty of free air time. The media needs to get out there and investigate Trump and spend at least as much effort on him as they have on Clinton’s emails. It sure looks like Trump bribed the Florida Attorney General. That alone should be generating weeks of investigative reporting. Where is the FBI in that little scandal?

  11. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    I was a Republican from1966 until I left in 2004 when I got so fed up with Republican men acting like 800 lb. gorillas in heat. What I saw of these men was a sickening example of men who have simply NOT grown up. They absolutely do not want a woman to be Commander-in-Chief, nor do they believe ANY woman can be a leader.

    They don’t mind a woman going through hours and hours of labor they can’t handle themselves just to bring THEM into the world. Nor, do they mind not having to bust butt when the “little lady” brings home that nice cushy 2nd income. But let her get ANY ideas about having a brain she can actually use in the big world and these Republican men start hauling out the chastity belts.

    Which, when you think about that is a joke. Here they are suffering from all manner of STDs picked up by their irresponsible sexual behavior and overdosing on Viagra, but then comes the bitching about single Moms who create not one but 2 Presidents. How dare they!

    They try to put their big feet on women’s issues not realizing just how fed up women are with these bossy, overbearing and mostly BIG MOUTH males of the GOP.

    Grr….Get Rid of Republicans!

    • Bonissima91910 says:

      EMASCULATION of the American male is seen as the result of our misogynistic upbringing; Holy books of all religions have sold misogyny as the acceptable way of being/living. Men have bought it totally, after all MALES wrote the HOLY books, and women have succumbed to the pressure, sadly so.

      Now that there is a possibility of a woman making it to the White House their “whatses” are trembling is terror that they might LOSE IT. However they will not, they just need to stop fearing this evolutionary process of acceptance from happening.

      Nature has demonstrated through the very act of conception and life that WE are equal, and as such entitled to the same opportunities and betterment if we so chose.

      More evolved cultures have already accepted this equality premise, Now America, the leader of the world is under the scope to see whether America really does deliver.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        I don’t buy that men are in any way emasculated. Have you ever watched these so called “emasculated males” of the Senate or House in session on CNN? They are the rudest, most bullying, dominating little creeps to come down the pike.

        They ask a question and before they wait for an answer rudely interrupt as if they were never taught manners. But of course, we know why they do this…this is the middle aged breed of attack dogs who want the spotlight they never got in Daycare. There, they had to fight for a little attention from strangers McDaddy and McMommy dumped them on.

        I have always refused to allow “gender” to color my opinion of anyone. A smart man or woman is equal to me. The only ones who don’t accept this are all too obviously under educated.

        Intelligent men value ideas and innovation no matter where it comes from. Yet, you have an entire generation of middle and Geezer Republican attack dogs who hate the idea of change. This they call “progressive ideology.” If you actually care about other Americans, this they call, “liberal ideology.”

        The only “ology” they never consider is their own.

        • Bonissima91910 says:

          Friend, I speak about the emasculation that men would feel if they came to the realization that women are equal, per the laws of nature. They do not have to feel emasculated if only they would let the truth about life be. Unfortunately because of all the beliefs rooted thousands of years in holy books of all denominations, books written by men at the right time for men to take control of what could have been power and control slipping from their grip. Nature has provided the truth, there is no pain in knowing it, it is a truth that would liberate all, and would once and fall all allow us to be full productive partners. Unfortunately because of misogyny of religious teachings men feel emasculated and women who have succumbed to the same beliefs don’t contribute to the final resolution of this painful dilemma. Clinton represents a brutal emasculation that our culture is not even ready to consider, least of all accept. Interestingly enough countries with older cultures who have already transcended this have had, or currently have women leaders acceptable in the highest jobs of their land. Wish I had saved the observations received from foreign countries on the subject…. Older cultures who have overcome and now observe the younger America going through the inevitable but painful process.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Truth to some right wingers is more an affront to their ancestral natures.

            Men who are strong feel no more emasculated than women who are strong feel “effiminated. ”

            The problem is not one of gender. When we die, does gender really determine if we rest in peace for all eternity?

            Is eternal rest divided according to gender? Men first, women and children follow?

            I’ve worked with enough hugely intelligent men and women to know that at the base core of all humanity lies genderless personhood. The minute gender is applied as a label, the walls become endless and to me, totally unnecessary.

            I refuse to treat any man like a little boy. I know men are equally intelligent. Or, at least, most are. Those who are not seem to be magnets for women who are the most dependent and need MANhood to validate their own womanhood. Just my opinion.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            If humanity is so neutral then why do you despise men? You think men only want weak,submissive women. You have very little experience with strong confident men, That is obvious. Break out of the convent. You are in need of some life experience with someone capable of actual non-artificial penetration.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            OH,stick it in…………. Deeper.

          • Bonissima91910 says:

            Oh, poor you, did you actually feel the emasculation???? It is a metaphor you duffus. Don’t be so offended, or maybe you are one of those who is unable to discern? Lots of those in America, in fact all over the world controlled by their religions to be limited….. Discenr, discern, it is the way to use the one tool your body has (in your head, between your ears) in order to get on better (hopefully) in life. Discenr, discern.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            Actually……….no. I feel betrayed by the Democrat nominee who would destroy my country. You think this is about GENDER EQUALITY??? No, it is about MUCH MORE. You and Elanor’s obsession with getting even with the male sex for imaginary sins is blinding you to the big picture. The Trump double standard in the debate was actually his having to debate Hillary and the moderator by himself. Democrats are too afraid of an even contest. You always have to take unfair advantage of any situation. Is it any wonder Democrats are famous for stuffing ballot boxes and counting the votes of dead people? Not to me.

          • StuL says:

            What truth? Men are physically stronger than women. Women can only gain power if men allow it. And this whole election didn’t turn out the way you thought it would, did it? Now Trump is president. Patriarchy isn’t going anywhere. You lose and will continue to lose more in the future.

          • Bonissima91910 says:

            BOT! Get over yourself!

          • Triclosan says:

            Obviously it’s you who needs to get over yourself (and get over the fact that Trump won the election) You don’t need to feel emasculated by it since you never had any balls to begin with, lol.

          • Bonissima91910 says:

            Like I said before: BOT! Get over yourself!

          • Triclosan says:

            And like I said before: it’s obviously you who needs to get over yourself and get over the fact that Trump won.

        • Daniel Wright says:

          You just don’t like it because these “misogynists” Don’t roll on their tummys and say “DEEPER”. What a hypocrite.

      • idamag says:

        You are right about holy books teaching mysogynism. Leviticus says that a woman who gives birth to a boy is unclean for 33 days and may not go to the House of the Lord. If she gives birth to a girl, she is unclean for 665 days.

      • Daniel Wright says:

        So if a candidate has a vagina she is a more evolved politician? If you say so.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          No she is a more intelligent, more accomplished politician. Balls in your court (pun intended.) What the hell is Trump’s political claim to fame other than that he like you was a Mommy’s boy whose cloyinug MAN dependent golddigging MOMMY overindulged her little man so now you and he think you own the world. Dream on teenage King.

          Everyone here in the Metro area knows that Trump was so out of control as a child thanks to Mommy’s overindulgences that Fred Trump had to send his son to military school to learn some discipline that Mommy couldn’t deter with her incestuous love of her son.

          Ever wonder why Trump manhandles his daughter Ivanka so publicly during debates? Like you, Trump okays incest. After all, that IS what MOMMY taught him like your Mommy did too right?

        • Bonissima91910 says:

          In present case, 2016 Elections in America, the better candidate has a vagina not a penis, and she is running for the presidency not for the prettier organ disavowing for the real values needed for the job. It is about accepting equally what nature made and it is undeniable, even if religions created by “men drunk with power (and insecurities)” want to destroy what is indestructible. Remember a sperm cannot CREATE LIFE without the ovum. Get on with life. Your question is sadly very revealing.

          • Daniel Wright says:

            What a crock. A career criminal and national security risk is the best choice because we need a woman in the white house??? You need to get on with life yourself. Hillary is the power hungry harpy who just can’t understand why she isn’t 50 points ahead in the polls. When she asked that question in that shrill tone along with that basket of deplorables statement,she revealed the true Hillary. Would I vote for a woman for president? Yes,in a heartbeat,but this woman? NEVER!!!!! I want a patriot in the oval office,not a power mad sociopath.

    • Daniel Wright says:

      Really? I was Democrat. by birth until I enlisted in the army in 1970;…….34 years before your “Epiphany”. Your problem is that men have not accepted women into the inner-sanctum of Government. They ]we] have not caved to your incessant sniveling about labor pains. I have some advice. If you hate kids,keep your legs closed. Unless you were raped ,you have no gripe. Women are fed up??? Men are sick and tired of women who nut up every 28 days. For God’s sake,take a midol.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        I don’t defend dipwads posts like yours. My problem is that men like you want total control you will NEVER have. You don’t have any control over me or any other woman and that bites hell out of your balls doesn’t it?

        As for you being in the military, I’ll just bet you never saw a day of action you coward.

        Men like you like to go around screwing anything stupid enough to glance your way. Then you RAPE and abandon the kids you bring into this world.

        Let me guess. You stupidly went after whatever was between your wife’s legs and she got fed up with you bossing her and abusing her so she divorced you. THAT IS the reason you hate women you jerk off. By the way, you mental masturbation is rotting your brain.

  12. Earnest Comment says:

    The debates will end the election one way or another.

    Write this down. Trump’s only strategy is to stay calm and make hillary lose it.

    He’s going to be trump. Speak off the cuff. Have a few factual inaccuracies. He’s going to speak over her once or twice until she puts the b*tch on.

    See hillary can’t believe she’s in danger if losing to this ass and his degenerates supporters. She been running for president for twelve years.

    She going to lose it. And then she’s going to lose the election.

    • john says:

      Ha ha. You massively underestimate her.

    • The lucky one says:

      ” Have a few factual inaccuracies.” More like a few dozen given that the man is unable to speak honestly and in many cases doesn’t even know what the facts are.

      “He’s going to speak over her once or twice until she puts the b*tch on.” Why is refusing to allow a loudmouth bully to speak over her seen as being a b*tch?

  13. Jon says:

    Trump can say or do anything he wants during the debates and not lose a single vote. The only question is how many more people can he deceive into voting for him. Hillary has a more difficult challenge as any misstep, however slight, will be seen as a sign of weakness and unsuitability for office. The double standard set by the media has been adopted by far too many people.

    • Daniel Wright says:

      True. The left is so biased.

    • dpaano says:

      She kicked his butt in the debate!!!!

      • Jon says:

        It wasn’t even close. Pundits were saying he did well for the 1st 20 to 25 minutes. I didn’t think he was doing well. He was able to control his temper for that long but I don’t equate that with doing well.

    • dpaano says:

      True, but I still think she changed a lot of “undecided” people’s minds during the first debate.

      • Jon says:

        I agree. She was confident, knowledgeable, and poised. Comparing her to the unhinged, interrupting, lying lunatic should have left no doubt in the minds of the “undecided” voters who is the better person to serve as president.

  14. Thoughtopsy says:

    Oh no! The Republican is wanting special dispensation because he’s a “First-time Politician”? I thought the GOP was against handouts for people who can’t cut it on their own two feet?

    Does The Donald really need “Debate Obamacare”? :O

  15. Bonissima91910 says:

    This message is NOT for all men as not all of them are cowardly, never the less take this in stride. This “debates” issue and the double standard that will prevail during the debates is nothing more than the terror American males feel of the emasculation they will experience when Clinton, The woman, is elected as POTUS. Fortunately she is bigger, more informed, more intelligent, more powerful, more determined, more resilient than males ever imagined. Regardless of the end results she will have moved women in America and the world in the correct direction.

  16. Daniel Jones says:

    Simply put, they want to feel they are the players, so they “get played” and they will always “get played”, quotation marks in place because you can’t be played if you’re playing along!

    Media Assholes–THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT.

  17. TZToronto says:

    Trump can’t really lose. If he comes off as gentlemany, he’ll be labeled presidential. If he fails to answer a tough substantive question, the question will be labeled a “gotcha” question. And if Clinton raises her voice, she will be called shrill, but a rambling, insulting Trump rant will be called assertive. The only way Trump can lose is if he breaks into a sweat and starts the stammer like Porky Pig. Lack of knowledge won’t hurt him, and superior knowledge won’t help her . . . sadly.

    • dpaano says:

      Fortunately, she won the debate hands down…..she knew which buttons to push to get Trump off his game, and she used them masterfully!! He ended up ranting his usual rants and not answering the questions with actual responses! Instead of telling the American people HOW he’s going to accomplish all the BS things he’s been saying he’s going to do….he retreated back into calling names and demeaning women, etc. Hillary, on the other hand, kept smiling and acted extremely graciously compared to the Trumpster!!!

  18. The lucky one says:

    “if Trump manages to not insult large portions of the electorate, the event will represent a victory for him.” Yes but what of the odds of that happening.

    I cannot vote for either of these demagogues. IMO – If the debate is run like a true “debate”, stay on topic, not allow undocumented assertions and ad hominem attacks Clinton will play Trump like a toy drum. However if it is run as an entertainment spectacle, like the GOP debates, and follows the “rules” of barroom or locker room argument then Trump will win.

    • dpaano says:

      This is, of course, a response AFTER the debate, which Trump lost overwhelmingly! I’ve noticed that lately, the journalists from many of the large newspapers are no longer giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. I know that the LA Times has now become much more open about BOTH candidates instead of pandering to Trump. Maybe the dismal results of Trump at the first presidential debate has shown them that he shouldn’t be handled with kid gloves!!!

    • dpaano says:

      I believe he did that with the first debate and he didn’t win that one!

      • The lucky one says:

        I think he did insult a lot of people. His statement that not paying any taxes is “smart” implies that if you are paying you are less than smart. He said that taking advantage of others in distress is what business is about, the implication being that business is meant to be predatory and those are hurt are weak and undeserving of support or consideration.

        I agree that Hillary performed better than Trump.

        • dpaano says:

          I find it astounding that a businessman who has a loss of almost a trillion dollars could even BEGIN to consider himself as being “smart.” Losses are not are NOT a result of good business!

  19. idamag says:

    Before Cable News and the bush administration violating the First Amendment by destroying Mary Woods and Dan Rather’s careers, we had real debates. Questions came from the People in the watching audience and the debaters did not know ahead of time what they would be. Moderators used facts to keep the debaters on track. We don’t have that anymore. One thing that always kept our Democracy strong, was real journalism. We don’t have that anymore, either.

  20. jeana.cox says:

    I make roughly $6 thousand-$8 thousand monthly working on the internet. Those who are eager to work easy online task for 2h-5h every day at your home and make good income for doing it… Test this work

  21. teresa_mitchell_91 says:

    I get paid something like $6 thousand-$8 thousand /every month for freelancing i do from my home. So if you are eager to finish simple computer-based tasks for 2-5 hours daily at your home and gain solid checks for doing it… Test this work

  22. sherrie.mcdavid says:

    I make about $6,000-$8,000 /month with an online job. So if you are prepared to do simple computer-based work for 2-5 hours /day from comfort of your home and make solid profit for doing it… This is a job for you…
    -> If this interest you, learn more about it here… <-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.