(06-27-2016, 10:51 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why criticize someone for being part native American? I am guessing it is part of her heritage if he is supposedly insulting them in connection to her.

(06-28-2016, 12:12 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 12:02 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-27-2016, 10:51 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why criticize someone for being part native American? I am guessing it is part of her heritage if he is supposedly insulting them in connection to her.

There really isn't any evidence that she is part Native American other than her disinterested say so.  It is equally possible that the ancestor in question is so far back that it is effectively meaningless.  Given the importance of identity politics in Democratic Party circles, it could simply be an attempt to say she is a minority without actually being one.

Personally, I don't care since she is just another clueless Senator pandering to a demographic that wants free shit.

I am quite surprised that it was even mentioned. Given it does not happen here (identity politics is not a thing here in NZ. We run just on different political positions). That is what should be the main focus is in politics after all. Anything else is just superficial and probably a lie for political gain.

(06-28-2016, 12:22 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 12:16 AM)Dan Wrote:

(06-27-2016, 10:51 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why criticize someone for being part native American? I am guessing it is part of her heritage if he is supposedly insulting them in connection to her.

Trump is doing it wrong but the legitimate criticism is that she isn’t Native American but claimed to be in order to take advantage of the desire of universities to have diverse faculty.

That is what I thought. It is amazing you know. The differences between American politics and NZ politics. Here people would not give a s*it if a politician declared they were a certain ethnicity. Like, who cares about that sort of personal detail? What has that got to do with their political ideology? Declaring that they are Indian or African or Italian etc does not tell you squat about what they stand for and that is what i am interested in as that is what will change a country and others sometimes also. Not their ethnicity. Vague and shallow detail whether lie or not.

(06-28-2016, 12:27 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 12:18 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 12:12 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 12:02 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-27-2016, 10:51 PM)taramarie Wrote: Why criticize someone for being part native American? I am guessing it is part of her heritage if he is supposedly insulting them in connection to her.

There really isn't any evidence that she is part Native American other than her disinterested say so.  It is equally possible that the ancestor in question is so far back that it is effectively meaningless.  Given the importance of identity politics in Democratic Party circles, it could simply be an attempt to say she is a minority without actually being one.

Personally, I don't care since she is just another clueless Senator pandering to a demographic that wants free shit.

I am quite surprised that it was even mentioned. Given it does not happen here (identity politics is not a thing here in NZ. We run just on different political positions). That is what should be the main focus is in politics after all. Anything else is just superficial and probably a lie for political gain.

This sort of crap has been going on since I was a kid.  Most intelligent lifeforms ignore it.  Unfortunately, no one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.  Which explains why our supposed leaders tend to be complete idiots regardless of party affiliation.  You might want to consider carefully what Alexis de Tocqueville had to say about the US.  He described modern America quite well which is not a good sign.

This sort of thing is not a good sign as America and NZ are very much connected through certain politics like TPP and other trade deals and the ignorance affects us inadvertently (or maybe not so), also. I am very much concerned for America as well as our leaders getting mixed up with some deals over there *cough tpp cough*

(06-28-2016, 12:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: I would too if they would listen (they won't.) John Key never listens to anyone but John Key. He proved that with the flag change and with signing the TPP deal. Unfortunately we will all fall down together along with Britain's Brexit although with that it will be temporary but still a painful transition.

(06-28-2016, 12:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: I would too if they would listen (they won't.) John Key never listens to anyone but John Key.

Quote:He proved that with the flag change and with signing the TPP deal. Unfortunately we will all fall down together along with Britain's Brexit although with that it will be temporary but still a painful transition.

(06-27-2016, 10:04 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Dan Wrote:Donald Trump can’t find a way to criticize Elizabeth Warren without demeaning Native Americans.

In theory, Trump has a good line of attack against the Massachusetts senator. She has claimed to have Cherokee ancestry, but this claim rests on family lore and is historically dubious.

Warren might want to do the DNA test if she thinks the family lore thing is solid and based on somebody in the family's genealogy research. I don't think the DNA test can nail down the exact tribe since a lot of tribe don't become a reference population due to past screw jobs.

Quote:But Trump and his allies, including former Senator Scott Brown, whom Warren ousted in 2012, can’t help but turn an attack on Warren’s false claim into mockery of Native Americans. “She can take a DNA test,” Brown suggested. As The Washington Post notes, “The storyline eventually backfired on Brown, especially after some campaign workers were filmed war-whooping and making ‘tomahawk chops’ at Warren.”

Obviously a dumb move.   I suppose Scott Brown can just go all in and get some fake tee pees from Amazon.



It's for sure fake because there's a window among other things.

Quote: While attacking Hillary Clinton and other career politicians, Donald Trump took aim Tuesday at two other prominent election targets: globalization and free trade.

"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/28/donald-trump-globalization-trade-pennsylvania-ohio/86431376/

Quote:We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs--how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses. But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing.

I understand that outsourcing means that employees lose jobs. Because work is often outsourced to other countries, it means Americans lose jobs. In other cases, nonunion employees get the work. Losing jobs is never a good thing, but we have to look at the bigger picture.

Last year, Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Lawrence R. Klein, the founder of Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, co-authored a study that showed how global outsourcing actually creates more jobs and increases wages, at least for IT workers. The study found that outsourcing helped companies be more competitive and more productive. That means they make more money, which means they funnel more into the economy, thereby, creating more jobs.

I know that doesn't make it any easier for people whose jobs have been outsourced overseas, but if a company's only means of survival is by farming jobs outside its walls, then sometimes it's a necessary step. The other option might be to close its doors for good.

(06-28-2016, 05:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I guess that quote shows that even his economic nationalism has not been consistent; contrary to what I suggested on another thread. He WAS talking it up on Oprah on a video I saw from back in the later 1980s. So, he just changes his ideas back and forth like he changes his suit and tie.

(06-28-2016, 05:55 PM)Dan Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I guess that quote shows that even his economic nationalism has not been consistent; contrary to what I suggested on another thread. He WAS talking it up on Oprah on a video I saw from back in the later 1980s. So, he just changes his ideas back and forth like he changes his suit and tie.

I doubt he actually wrote the blog post.

Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/20060507020036/http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=121537

There's a lot to celebrate this holiday season. Elton John married his long-time partner David Furnish on December 21. That's the first day that civil partnerships between gay couples became legal in England under the new Civil Partnership Act.

Elton credits David with helping him kick drug and alcohol addictions that nearly killed him. The pair has been together for 12 years. I know both of them and they get along wonderfully. It's a marriage that's going to work.

Elton made the ceremony a small private affair involving only his and David's parents as witnesses. The couple just didn't want to make a big deal out of the wedding. They really wanted to keep things low key.

By all accounts, Elton and David had every tabloid and every entertainment magazine knocking at their door begging for exclusive rights to the affair. By some news reports, the couple turned down an offer of $11 million to record their wedding for British television. But Elton said, "Our relationship isn't up for grabs. It doesn't come with a price tag."

In any event, I'm very happy for them. If two people dig each other, they dig each other. Good luck, Elton. Good luck, David. Have a great life.

(But because I wasn't invited, do I still have to send them a toaster?)

Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/20060507020132/http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=115383


The New York Times has made the headlines again: investigative reporter, Judith Miller, has announced her "retirement" after 28 years at The Times. I wonder who she was actually working for. I'd like to have The New York Times investigated for its reporting.

Judith Miller said that as a reporter, she had become the news, "something a New York Times reporter never wants to be." I personally think journalists should be in the public eye as much as possible. They would be more closely scrutinized.

It's headline-worthy when a reporter goes from being a Pulitzer Prize winner and martyr for press freedom to an employee who misled her own editors in the CIA leak. Is it any wonder she decided to retire? She must be exhausted from those dizzying and headline-grabbing feats.

I know The New York Times has to come up with headlines. That's their job. Still, I would like to see them focusing on the facts once in awhile. Otherwise, they might as well hire some fiction writers and poets and get some really high quality literature on their pages instead of potboiler news. If I'm going to spend my time reading, I want to make sure it's quality time.

Maybe Judith Miller shouldn't "retire," but instead investigate The New York Times for their reporting practices. I'm sure that after 28 years with them, she could find the right "unnamed sources." Even though she is not a very good reporter, she could put her journalistic experience to good use, and figure out what happened to this once great paper.

Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/20060507012037/http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=112200

I think anyone who has lost a son, a daughter, or a loved one in the war in Iraq should sue The New York Times for Judith Miller's false reporting about the so-called "weapons of mass destruction" as a premise for that war. It's one thing to get a bad review, it's another to lose more than 2,000 lives because of false or inaccurate reporting. Imagine having the Judith Millers of the world working for you and getting away with things that are inconceivable to a journalist. We have to draw the line somewhere, and that's where I draw the line. All the news that's fit to print seems to have evolved into "whatever we decide to print is the news, whether it is correct or not!"

This past weekend I was playing golf with a friend who was irate with The New York Times. His investment portfolio has never been lower. His stock in the company is at the lowest it has been in ten years, and he can only blame the behavior at the so-called "paper of record" for this plunge.

In addition, the current mess with Judith Miller has made me wonder what is going on there. What kind of reporting is The New York Times doing? Who are they really working for? Can we afford to believe anything they print? Do they have a conscience? Do they know that power includes responsibility? Do they even know what they are doing?

I think The New York Times has some big-time cleaning up to do, but I wonder if it's too late.

Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/20060507011841/http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=103779

Often I'm asked whether I think there is a glass ceiling for women in the corporate world. I admit that in many offices that obstacle may still be in place, but I like to think there isn't one in the Trump Organization.

There are several high-ranking women in my organization. Anyone who has watched The Apprentice is familiar with Carolyn Kepcher, who is an executive vice president as well as general manager and chief operating officer for two Trump National golf clubs. She's very smart, very shrewd, and tough as nails. Those are qualities I admire in someone, male or female.

Early in the first season of The Apprentice, I warned the female contestants that they were relying too heavily on their sex appeal to win the tasks. I think women have a tough situation in the workplace because of the sexual undertones. The business environment is so cutthroat that men and women learn to use whatever they can to get ahead, including their sexuality. Yet, when women do this, the perception of them changes. That's why women have to work harder to overcome obstacles.

I expect my employees to work long hours and to be available whenever I need them. Sometimes these expectations are more difficult for women to meet than men because they often have more family obligations than men do. I think sometimes this is where the obstacles come into play. It's not that the opportunities aren't there. It's just that the priorities can be different. Men are often more willing to put their jobs before their families--and I don't think that's a good thing. Women usually will put their families first, or at least give them equal time. The families win, but often that's why women perceive a glass ceiling looming overhead.

(06-28-2016, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:55 PM)Dan Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I guess that quote shows that even his economic nationalism has not been consistent; contrary to what I suggested on another thread. He WAS talking it up on Oprah on a video I saw from back in the later 1980s. So, he just changes his ideas back and forth like he changes his suit and tie.

I doubt he actually wrote the blog post.

Why do you say that?

Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/20060507012209/http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=98726

With housing prices continuing to rise into the far reaches of the stratosphere, there's a lot of talk about a housing bubble on the brink of bursting. Scared at the possibility, industry watchers have been preaching impending doom, warning house shoppers to be wary of the real estate market.

As long as interest rates stay low and the dollar stays weak--which is an unfortunate situation, but it happens to be good for real estate--then there will be no burst in the current housing bubble. If interest rates go up precipitously and the dollar gets stronger, then there will be some reduction in housing prices.

How you react to the so-called housing bubble can be a barometer of your business personality. Are you the type of person who takes advantage of positive situations when they present themselves, riding them out as long as they last? Or do you heed every message of doom and gloom, avoiding risks that could be some remarkable opportunities?

Obviously, good things don't last forever. But in a competitive business environment, you have to be willing to take chances. You can't always live in fear. That said, when things start to look questionable, you also have to be smart enough to know when to get out.

Dan\82 Wrote:More from Trumps blog

Quote:With housing prices continuing to rise into the far reaches of the stratosphere, there's a lot of talk about a housing bubble on the brink of bursting.

Quote:Scared at the possibility, industry watchers have been preaching impending doom, warning house shoppers to be wary of the real estate market.

Quote:As long as interest rates stay low and the dollar stays weak--

Quote:which is an unfortunate situation, but it happens to be good for real estate--then there will be no burst in the current housing bubble. If interest rates go up precipitously and the dollar gets stronger, then there will be some reduction in housing prices.

Quote:How you react to the so-called housing bubble can be a barometer of your business personality. Are you the type of person who takes advantage of positive situations when they present themselves, riding them out as long as they last? Or do you heed every message of doom and gloom, avoiding risks that could be some remarkable opportunities?

Quote:Obviously, good things don't last forever. But in a competitive business environment, you have to be willing to take chances. You can't always live in fear. That said, when things start to look questionable, you also have to be smart enough to know when to get out.

(06-28-2016, 06:06 PM)Dan 82 Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:55 PM)Dan Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I guess that quote shows that even his economic nationalism has not been consistent; contrary to what I suggested on another thread. He WAS talking it up on Oprah on a video I saw from back in the later 1980s. So, he just changes his ideas back and forth like he changes his suit and tie.

I doubt he actually wrote the blog post.

Why do you say that?

1) I doubt he'd think it was worth his time

2) It's a very different tone than his tweets.

(06-29-2016, 07:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 06:06 PM)Dan Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:55 PM)Dan Wrote:

(06-28-2016, 05:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I guess that quote shows that even his economic nationalism has not been consistent; contrary to what I suggested on another thread. He WAS talking it up on Oprah on a video I saw from back in the later 1980s. So, he just changes his ideas back and forth like he changes his suit and tie.

I doubt he actually wrote the blog post.

Why do you say that?

1) I doubt he'd think it was worth his time

2) It's a very different tone than his tweets.

But that opinion does not depend on actual evidence that he didn't write his blogs.

I think he does spend time explaining his views on things. He came on talk shows back then to do it. His tone has become more strident in recent years; we all know that. Tweets of course give no occasion for nuance. He has changed all his other views over time, even recently; even within a span of one minute in some cases; so changing his views on trade is not inconceivable. We don't know to what extent his views are what he thinks will win him the presidency, or whether he is just not well-informed or not too concerned about being consistent. Certainly his behavior has been based on whatever gives him an advantage in business. Now he is a demagogue who has studied the techniques of Hitler. His approach to politics is to some extent deliberate, and based on his strategy for winning, in my opinion.

(06-29-2016, 10:15 AM)Dan 82 Wrote: the fact that he cited an economist something I don't think he'd bothered to do.