In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 16 2016 09:18 Lord Tolkien wrote: Depends. Oregon is a closed primary, though I'm not entirely familiar with what their exact primary rules are. This can effect Tueday's results.
I find it more likely they just haven't done much polling in the state (the two remaining significant states in the primaries are NJ and California), or that similar regulations and restrictions as Indiana and Michigan does on robocalls and polling, which can skew the polls (also depends on the pollster in question and their methodology/possible skews), though it's just speculation at this point.
EDIT: Just checked. There's only been one poll done, so don't put too much stock in that number. With polling, it needs to be taken in aggregate.
Oregon is all vote by mail/drop-off too so they won't really be voting on the 17th (lot's of people do wait till the last moment to drop off ballots though).
There were something like 80,000 new Democrats registered in OR as well (who wouldn't have been polled).
Yeah, I really just don't expect Bernie to lose Oregon. I will be very surprised if he gets less than 60%.
Two Super Pacs hoping to raise at least $170m to help Donald Trump win the presidency unveiled new efforts this week that reflect early fundraising momentum – even as some big donors remain wary of the billionaire’s credibility after his serial Super Pac bashing and his inflammatory rhetoric that many in centrist Republican circles deem dangerous.
The Great America Pac, which recently recruited strategist Ed Rollins as a co-chairman, this week announced it would hold a weekend event to corral donors in June at the ranch of billionaire Texas energy magnate T Boone Pickens. Eric Beach, a veteran fundraiser and co-chair of the Pac, revealed in an interview that the Pac is shooting “to raise and spend $150m through election day”.
The Committee for American Sovereignty – the other Super Pac – has set a goal of raising $20m before the Republican convention in late July with a strong focus on roping in California donors with ties to Trump.
The accelerated drives by pro Trump Super Pacs come as the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency seems to be outweighing the still deep concerns of many mega donors about Trump’s thin policy pronouncements, and a number of his recent reversals on issues including his repeated attacks on the harmful influence of big donors and Super Pacs.
Mega donor Sheldon Adelson, in an op-ed endorsement of Trump in the Washington Post on Friday urging party leaders and other investors to back him, underscored the big-donor embrace of Trump by writing the “alternative to Trump being sworn in as the nation’s 45th president is frightening”.
After self-financing much of his primary campaign to the tune of some $40m, Trump and his allies seem to have belatedly realized that for the general election there is a need for the unlimited checks from corporations, individuals and unions that Super Pacs – unlike campaigns – can accept to help boost his prospects of winning in the fall.
1 destroyer = almost 5 billion, Makes me wonder how much the other Destroyers that were originally planned, or even a Carrier would cost to build.
The US Navy is ready to take ownership of the Zumwalt, its largest and most technologically sophisticated destroyer.
Sailors’ uniforms and personal effects, supplies and spare parts are being moved aboard the 610-foot (186m) warship in anticipation of crew members taking on their new charge, said Capt James Kirk, the destroyer’s skipper.
The Zumwalt is the first new class of warship built at Bath Iron Works since the Arleigh Burke slid into the Kennebec River in 1989. The shipyard is expected to turn the destroyer over to the Navy this week.
“We’ve overcome lots of obstacles to get to this point,” said electrician John Upham, of Litchfield. “I think everybody in the shipyard is proud of the work we’ve done.”
The ship features an angular shape that makes it 50 times more difficult to detect on radar; it’s powered by electricity produced by turbines similar to those in a Boeing 777; new guns are designed to pummel targets from nearly 100 miles away (160kms). Advanced automation will allow the big ship to operate with a much smaller crew than on current generation of destroyers.
The final cost of the Zumwalt is expected to be at least US$4.4 billion.
The original concept for the land-attack destroyer was floated more than 15 years ago then underwent several permutations. The final design called for a destroyer with a stealthy shape and advanced gun system that can fire rocket-propelled projectiles with pinpoint accuracy.
But the growing cost forced the Navy to reduce what was originally envisioned as a 32-ship program to just three ships. The loss of economies of scale drove up the cost of the individual ships.
The slow-going and rising costs were little surprise after the General Accounting Office warned that the Navy was trying to incorporate too many new technologies into the ship.
On May 16 2016 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 1 destroyer = almost 5 billion, Makes me wonder how much the other Destroyers that were originally planned, or even a Carrier would cost to build.
The US Navy is ready to take ownership of the Zumwalt, its largest and most technologically sophisticated destroyer.
Sailors’ uniforms and personal effects, supplies and spare parts are being moved aboard the 610-foot (186m) warship in anticipation of crew members taking on their new charge, said Capt James Kirk, the destroyer’s skipper.
The Zumwalt is the first new class of warship built at Bath Iron Works since the Arleigh Burke slid into the Kennebec River in 1989. The shipyard is expected to turn the destroyer over to the Navy this week.
“We’ve overcome lots of obstacles to get to this point,” said electrician John Upham, of Litchfield. “I think everybody in the shipyard is proud of the work we’ve done.”
The ship features an angular shape that makes it 50 times more difficult to detect on radar; it’s powered by electricity produced by turbines similar to those in a Boeing 777; new guns are designed to pummel targets from nearly 100 miles away (160kms). Advanced automation will allow the big ship to operate with a much smaller crew than on current generation of destroyers.
The final cost of the Zumwalt is expected to be at least US$4.4 billion.
The original concept for the land-attack destroyer was floated more than 15 years ago then underwent several permutations. The final design called for a destroyer with a stealthy shape and advanced gun system that can fire rocket-propelled projectiles with pinpoint accuracy.
But the growing cost forced the Navy to reduce what was originally envisioned as a 32-ship program to just three ships. The loss of economies of scale drove up the cost of the individual ships.
The slow-going and rising costs were little surprise after the General Accounting Office warned that the Navy was trying to incorporate too many new technologies into the ship.
The problem with the cost is that they are only building 3 of that class of warship. I suspect that that will change as the Navy finalizes some of it new weapons technology (i.e. The railgun).
On May 16 2016 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 1 destroyer = almost 5 billion, Makes me wonder how much the other Destroyers that were originally planned, or even a Carrier would cost to build.
The US Navy is ready to take ownership of the Zumwalt, its largest and most technologically sophisticated destroyer.
Sailors’ uniforms and personal effects, supplies and spare parts are being moved aboard the 610-foot (186m) warship in anticipation of crew members taking on their new charge, said Capt James Kirk, the destroyer’s skipper.
The Zumwalt is the first new class of warship built at Bath Iron Works since the Arleigh Burke slid into the Kennebec River in 1989. The shipyard is expected to turn the destroyer over to the Navy this week.
“We’ve overcome lots of obstacles to get to this point,” said electrician John Upham, of Litchfield. “I think everybody in the shipyard is proud of the work we’ve done.”
The ship features an angular shape that makes it 50 times more difficult to detect on radar; it’s powered by electricity produced by turbines similar to those in a Boeing 777; new guns are designed to pummel targets from nearly 100 miles away (160kms). Advanced automation will allow the big ship to operate with a much smaller crew than on current generation of destroyers.
The final cost of the Zumwalt is expected to be at least US$4.4 billion.
The original concept for the land-attack destroyer was floated more than 15 years ago then underwent several permutations. The final design called for a destroyer with a stealthy shape and advanced gun system that can fire rocket-propelled projectiles with pinpoint accuracy.
But the growing cost forced the Navy to reduce what was originally envisioned as a 32-ship program to just three ships. The loss of economies of scale drove up the cost of the individual ships.
The slow-going and rising costs were little surprise after the General Accounting Office warned that the Navy was trying to incorporate too many new technologies into the ship.
The problem with the cost is that they are only building 3 of that class of warship. I suspect that that will change as the Navy finalizes some of it new weapons technology (i.e. The railgun).
The navy won't finalize the railgun without a major breakthrough in material science.
To this point there's no material that can withstand hundreds (and the railgun has to be rated for thousands) of full-force shots. Some of them break after as much as ten.
Not gonna happen anytime soon.
edit: should've added, as main armament. I'd assume as anti-missile defense system, it would work well, and be safer/less expensive. But you wouldn't design a new ship for it, or wait until the system is available and then continue to build ships - you'd build/buy ships and retrofit those systems. So "waiting for the railgun" is not the reason for not building/buying more of those types of ships.
It is striking to see how the press digs for dirt in trump's personal life years ago, is that how the president candidates are vetted in the US. Do they not understand that this year election nobody cares about such thing? Why don't they try to speculate how trump is gonna shake up the whole system given the anti-establishment force so visible like never before
On May 16 2016 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Sailors’ uniforms and personal effects, supplies and spare parts are being moved aboard the 610-foot (186m) warship in anticipation of crew members taking on their new charge, said Capt James Kirk, the destroyer’s skipper.
Fantastic name and rank. I'm sure he was never teased about it at the Naval Academy.
On May 16 2016 12:57 economist_ wrote: It is striking to see how the press digs for dirt in trump's personal life years ago, is that how the president candidates are vetted in the US.
It is. Clinton has spent 30 years in the limelight facing such intense scrutiny of her life an her record, and Trump will face his.
Do they not understand that this year election nobody cares about such thing? Why don't they try to speculate how trump is gonna shake up the whole system given the anti-establishment force so visible like never before
But people do care. He does have a certain anti-establishment appeal, but his past and his primary statements are very useful weapons for which a GE campaign can bludgeon him to death with, no matter how he tries to spin it.
On the topic of Trump's vice-president, I believe Ben Carson highlighted Palin, Christie, Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio as candidates on Trump's short-list.
I'm not going to believe anything for now, because if that's actually his short-list I can only marvel at how the Republicans all lost to such an incompetent campaign.
On May 16 2016 12:57 economist_ wrote: It is striking to see how the press digs for dirt in trump's personal life years ago, is that how the president candidates are vetted in the US.
It is. Clinton has spent 30 years in the limelight facing such intense scrutiny of her life an her record, and Trump will face his.
Do they not understand that this year election nobody cares about such thing? Why don't they try to speculate how trump is gonna shake up the whole system given the anti-establishment force so visible like never before
But people do care. He does have a certain anti-establishment appeal, but his past and his primary statements are very useful weapons for which a GE campaign can bludgeon him to death with, no matter how he tries to spin it.
On the topic of Trump's vice-president, I believe Ben Carson highlighted Palin, Christie, Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio as candidates on Trump's short-list.
I'm not going to believe anything for now, because if that's actually his short-list I can only marvel at how the Republicans all lost to such an incompetent campaign.
On May 16 2016 12:57 economist_ wrote: It is striking to see how the press digs for dirt in trump's personal life years ago, is that how the president candidates are vetted in the US.
It is. Clinton has spent 30 years in the limelight facing such intense scrutiny of her life an her record, and Trump will face his.
Do they not understand that this year election nobody cares about such thing? Why don't they try to speculate how trump is gonna shake up the whole system given the anti-establishment force so visible like never before
But people do care. He does have a certain anti-establishment appeal, but his past and his primary statements are very useful weapons for which a GE campaign can bludgeon him to death with, no matter how he tries to spin it.
On the topic of Trump's vice-president, I believe Ben Carson highlighted Palin, Christie, Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio as candidates on Trump's short-list.
I'm not going to believe anything for now, because if that's actually his short-list I can only marvel at how the Republicans all lost to such an incompetent campaign.
trump made tweet that rubio was not a candidate
And Carson has tried to clarify his statement as well. As I said, I don't believe it.
On May 16 2016 12:57 economist_ wrote: It is striking to see how the press digs for dirt in trump's personal life years ago, is that how the president candidates are vetted in the US.
It is. Clinton has spent 30 years in the limelight facing such intense scrutiny of her life an her record, and Trump will face his.
Do they not understand that this year election nobody cares about such thing? Why don't they try to speculate how trump is gonna shake up the whole system given the anti-establishment force so visible like never before
But people do care. He does have a certain anti-establishment appeal, but his past and his primary statements are very useful weapons for which a GE campaign can bludgeon him to death with, no matter how he tries to spin it.
On the topic of Trump's vice-president, I believe Ben Carson highlighted Palin, Christie, Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio as candidates on Trump's short-list.
I'm not going to believe anything for now, because if that's actually his short-list I can only marvel at how the Republicans all lost to such an incompetent campaign.
Fair enough, I think the clinton's records have a lot to do with her political view and practices, although her personal life is news worthy as well. Maybe trump is a newcomers so you're right he should expect this. The bottom line is nobody cares about such things about trump. He had a totally different life before running. And the whole attitude towards women is really mixed. I don't think whether he can expand the current base for the GE relies on the appeal to women. It does to some extent but he's gonna get more people supporting him based on that anti-establishment resonance more than anything else, including the political ideology which does not mean a damn thing - just look at how pathetic the national review is.
I think Newt Gingrich is one of the VPs recommended and the betting market has him with highest odds to be offered the position. But all of this VP is secondary because the whole thing is about trump himself and his approach of "modern campaign".
I expect Trump to pick a VP who will be a liaison to Capital Hill in the same way that Biden fulfills that role for Obama. For this reason, Gingrich is one the guys that I've been thinking that he'd pick for months. There are others out there who can fill this role as well.
On May 16 2016 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: 1 destroyer = almost 5 billion, Makes me wonder how much the other Destroyers that were originally planned, or even a Carrier would cost to build.
]The US Navy is ready to take ownership of the Zumwalt, its largest and most technologically sophisticated destroyer.
Sailors’ uniforms and personal effects, supplies and spare parts are being moved aboard the 610-foot (186m) warship in anticipation of crew members taking on their new charge, said Capt James Kirk, the destroyer’s skipper.
Oliver told that story in his LWT show yesterday. It's jaw dropping.
In 1991, a "spokeman" of Trump gave an interview; it happens it was Trump himself pretending to be a certain "John Miller". Unsurprisingly the whole content of the interview was boastful bragging, including about Madonna "wanting to go out with him".
Interviewer [Female]: Good. How are you? What’s your name again?
John Miller: John Miller.
Interviewer: And you work with [indiscernible]?
John Miller: Yes, that’s correct.
Interviewer: John Miller. Can you sort of -- I guess we’re going to try and put a story together and we have a deadline of today because our magazine closed, well, basically yesterday but we’ll probably get something together – you know, it’s been on the cover both here and the Post.
John Miller: Yeah, I saw that.
Interviewer: What kind of comment is coming from, you know, your agency or from Donald?
John Miller: Well, it just that he really decided that he wasn’t, you know, he didn’t want to make any commitment. He didn’t want to make a commitment. He really thought it was too soon. He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially. As you saw, he got his licenses five to nothing the other day and totally unanimous. And he’s really been working hard and doing well. And probably, as you know, there’s a real estate depression in the United States and he’s probably doing as well as anybody there is. And frankly, he wants to keep it that way. And he just thought it was too soon to make any commitment to anybody.
Interviewer: So what is going to happen when -- is she being asked to leave or is she going to be allowed to stay?
John Miller: Well, he treats everybody well. You know, you don’t know him, but he’s a --
Interviewer: No, I have met him.
John Miller: Have you met him? He’s a good guy and he’s not going to hurt anybody. The one article said he was going to throw her out of the apartment is total nonsense. He is going to always treat her well as he treated his wife well. I mean, he paid his wife a great deal of money. He did it in a very bad period of time and, ultimately, that was settled. There were those that say that that was even put that way. I don’t know if you heard that but that Trump became poor until he got his divorce. And then all of a sudden, he’s been doing very well and I guess you probably heard that, too.
But he treated his wife well and he treated -- and he will treat Marla well. He’s somebody that has a lot of options, and, frankly, he gets called by everybody. He gets called by everybody in the book, in terms of women.
Interviewer: Like who?
John Miller: Well, he gets called by a lot of people.
Interviewer: Yeah. Well, what about -- this Carla Bruni, I mean, how important is she right now? Is she [cross-talking]?
John Miller: I think it’s somebody that -- you know, she’s beautiful. I saw her once quickly and she’s beautiful and all, but I think that he’s got a whole open field really. A lot of the people that you write about, and you people do a great job, by the way, but a lot of the people that you write about really are -- I mean, they call. They just call. Actresses, people that you write about just call to see if they can go out with him and things.
Interviewer: You can’t say, like, did Madonna ever really call?
John Miller: He was so set up with that. You know, Madonna called and what happened -- I mean, I don’t know if you want to listen to this.
Interviewer: No, I do.
John Miller: Do you? Do you have a second?
Interviewer: Yeah, obviously.
John Miller: What happened is it was a benefit at the Plaza Hotel which he owned for Vreeland, Diana Vrelland, or no, for Martha Graham. It was a ball benefit for Martha actually just before she passed away. And Madonna was there and she came in a beautiful evening gown and combat boots. She was wearing combat boots, and Trump was asked to go over to meet her. And he was there just for a little while to say hello and to make a speech and make like an introductory speech.
Madonna was in the room, and so somebody from Madonna’s entourage, because she comes in with an entourage of dancers and everything else, and somebody from Madonna’s entourage came over and said, “Would you go over and say hello to Madonna?” And so he went over and said hello to Madonna and he gave his autograph to the dancers. She said, “These are fans” and all this. “Will you give them the autograph?” So he said, “Best wishes” or something. And then all of a sudden -- and that was the end. And then he said goodbye to her and that was literally the end. He’s got zero interest in Madonna. It was literally the end.
And the next day in the newspapers, they had a story that he wanted to go out with her and everything else. Besides that, that she was sitting there with her boyfriend. I think his name was Ward or something --
Interviewer: Yeah, Tony Ward.
John Miller: -- and she was sitting there right with her boyfriend. So, I mean, it wouldn’t be appropriate.
Then the next day, there was a story that Trump went to [inaudible] and Madonna was supposedly at [inaudible], and that was another total nonsense. So, somehow, there was a thing. And then she called recently about this fight and wanted to go out. You know, she’s got this PR machine that I guess you people play to very well but it really was nonsense. So, anyway.
Interviewer: I don’t think we ever reported that about Madonna and Donald.
John Miller: Well, she called and wanted to go out with him, that I can tell you. And one of the other people that you’re writing about -- by the way, I’m sort of new here.
Interviewer: What is your position there?
John Miller: Well, I’m sort of handling PR because he gets so much of it. And frankly, I mean, I could tell you off the record. Until I get to know you, off the record, I can tell you that he didn’t care if he got bad PR until he got his divorce finished.
So when he got a lot of bad financial stuff, he liked it because, you know, it was good because he could get a divorce finished. And once his divorce is finished, if you noticed since then he’s doing well financially and he’s doing well in every other way. The licensing was five to nothing. And people are saying how come all of a sudden he’s doing so well? And then I guess Newsday about two weeks ago did a story on that. So I’ve sort of been put in here to handle because I’ve never seen anybody get so many calls from the press.
Interviewer: Where did you come from?
John Miller: I basically worked for different firms. I worked for a couple of different firms, and I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes. So I’m going to do this a little part time, and then, yeah, go on with my life, too.
Interviewer: Is he trying to -- I mean, is Marla trying to reconcile all this or is this --
John Miller: Marla wants to be back with him and he wants to be with her, but he just, he just feels it’s too soon.
Interviewer: What about the ring?
John Miller: Well, it was never an engagement ring, because that was my first question. It was never an engagement ring. It was a ring -- I mean, he wouldn’t buy the engagement ring. Actually, he bought the ring at the Taj Mahal at Tiffany’s. The only place that Tiffany’s has that, you know, in a hotel is because of his relationship with Tiffany being the neighbor next door to Trump Tower and Tiffany decided to open up a store at the Taj Mahal. And this was a way of giving Tiffany some business in addition to getting Ivan -- geting Marla something that would be nice.
So he did that, and as I told him and other people told him, when you want to buy a present, don’t make it a ring the next time. It was a little confusing.
Interviewer: Make it a chain.
John Miller: Make it anything. Anything but a ring, I guess.
Interviewer: Do you think there’s any fear that Marla will spill everything at all or -- ?
John Miller: It doesn’t matter to him. He truly doesn’t care. I’ve never seen somebody that’s so immune, that he gets immune to, you know, some people would say you got bad press three or four months ago. Now, he’s starting to get good press where I don’t know what you call this but this is a big press.
But I’ve never seen somebody so immune to -- he actually thrived on the bad press initially. And once the divorce was over, he said, “We have to change this” and it’s very interesting. Frankly, if he got good press during the divorce, he’d be in court right now because she settled because she thought that she better believe the press and she settled. And now, he’s doing great and now she would like not to settle.
Ivana, when she didn’t settle, she made a huge mistake and she’s now had a huge fight with her lawyer, Michael Kennedy, over why they made the settlement. And it’s over. He sort of laughs at everything.
Interviewer: How does Donald feel about Ivana’s [indiscernible] with Barbara Walters?
John Miller: Well, it was a total violation of -- I mean, I could tell you --
Interviewer: Yeah. But then, that was -- I mean, did the judge, Phyllis What’s-Her-Name?
John Miller: Gangel-Jacob, yeah, but that’s going to be -- the judge felt that when Donald got Ivana to sign that agreement, that Donald got Ivana to void her rights and that the judge was wrong because there’s so much case law on that. And what happened is the judge said -- by the way, she can take that clause out. She just said she’s not going to hold Ivana in contempt. In other words, if somebody -- if she violates and she’s not going to put Ivana in jail for violating. Okay? So she didn’t void that clause.
Now, Donald’s got a decision as to whether or not he wants to pay her any more money because by violating that clause, he in theory doesn’t have to pay her any money.
Interviewer: Being the good guy that he’s trying to be -- I mean --
John Miller: I’m not sure what he’s going to do. Again, you could say that she shouldn’t have done that either. I mean, you sign an agreement, you go through months and months, and she can’t say she didn’t know this one. And what he did was smart because he got not only Ivana to sign the agreement, but he got Ivana’s lawyers to sign the agreement that she’d do it, that she speaks English perfectly, that everything in the agreement is known and studied and everything else.
So, in theory, I think he could probably -- you know, I think that could have cost her many millions of dollars. I don’t know that he’s going to enforce it or not.
Interviewer: What about that whole thing that was brought up in the news whether Marla wouldn’t sign any sort of prenuptial? Did that have anything to do with the ending of the relationship?
John Miller: No, no.
Interviewer: Was that true? I mean, was he trying to get her to sign anything?
John Miller: Well, I can tell you this. Just off the record, there’s no way he gets married without a prenuptial agreement. You understand that. It was painful but worked in the Ivana case because, you know, while it was challenged, it still ended up being upheld and worked. And frankly, she got not exactly one penny, she didn’t get one penny more than what the agreement called for. So that’s that. And she spent a lot of money on lawyers and a lot of money on everything and that was the year of the circus, but they do stand up.
I can tell you there was never any talk of marriage from Donald’s point of view. I can also say that Marla would’ve liked to get married, obviously, but it was just something he didn’t want to do. It’s just too soon. And, you know, hopefully, he’ll maintain a good relationship with Marla. [Indiscernible] but it’s just too soon.
Interviewer: What about this Ivana thing? It says in the Newsday Trump also told friends that when he and Ivana met last week, she indicated that she would be interested in reconciliation?
John Miller: Ivana wants to get back with Donald, but she --
Interviewer: Really? After saying on Barbara Walters that she never would?
John Miller: What is she going to say? What is she going to say? She’s going to say when he’s with somebody else and had other people lined up, is she going to say, “Yes, I want to get back. I want to get back.” You know, she’s a pretty savvy woman and she’s not going to say -- I mean, he’s living with Marla and he’s got three other girlfriends, and then, and she’s not going to say, I really want to get back, you know? She wants to get back, she’s told it to a lot of her friends and she’s told it to him, but it’s so highly unlikely. That’s off the record. He left. I mean, it was his choice to leave and he left.
Interviewer: He left for Marla.
John Miller: No, he didn’t leave, no. See, that’s the biggest misconception of this whole thing. The second question I asked about after the ring was the biggest misconception is he left. He didn’t leave for Marla. He really left for himself. He didn’t leave for Marla. He never left for Marla. He was going to leave anyway. Marla was there, but he was going to leave anyway. Whether there was a Marla or not he was going to leave anyway.
So now he has somebody else named Carla who is beautiful and I guess you have something on her. I don’t know if you do or not.
Interviewer: No, they won’t talk about her. He didn’t say anything about her. I mean, she’s a daughter of who --
John Miller: Well, she’s a very successful model, etc., etc. But again, he didn’t leave Marla for her. He just wants [indiscernible], he does things for himself. He leaves for himself, he does things for himself. He, when he makes the decision, that will be a very lucky woman. But he’s not going to do that until he makes the decision. You know, when he makes the decision, he’s very capable of a total commitment when he makes the decision. But he felt it’s too soon. Off the record, he probably felt Marla wasn’t the right one, or whatever, but he just felt it was too soon.
Interviewer: How did he meet Carla?
John Miller: At the Plaza Hotel, she was doing a Carolina Herrera fashion show.
Interviewer: Was Ivana there, do you think? Does she go to fashion shows?
John Miller: Well she goes to them, but less so since, you know, since --
Interviewer: When did he meet Carla there?
John Miller: Probably a few months ago.
Interviewer: Uh-huh. Have they been able to see each other?
John Miller: Well, not really. And again, I heard with Carla -- I mean, I’ll give you -- this is getting to be -- this is a little different from what I normally discuss. This is I think an interesting point. Carla is a very beautiful girl from Italy whose father is one of the wealthiest men in Europe.
Interviewer: Who is he? What’s the name of her father?
John Miller: Her father’s name is -- her name is Carla Bruni Tedeschi.
Interviewer: How do you spell that?
John Miller: I don’t know. She doesn’t use the last name because it’s too complicated, you know [indiscernible]. But anyway, but her father is one of the wealthiest men in Europe. Carla is extraordinarily beautiful and didn’t want to be a model except that every time she’d go to a show, [indiscernible] to look, Ralph Lauren and various people would say, Carla, you have to be on the show, etc., etc. So she does all of the top shows and she’s always very busy and very successful, etc., etc. She was having a big thing with Mick Jagger. Did you hear about this?
Interviewer: Well, I’ve just been reading about it.
John Miller: What happened is she was going with Eric Clapton.
Interviewer: Mick Jagger, who was married at that point?
John Miller: Mick Jagger, as of three months ago she was having a big thing. [indiscernible] What she - Just doesn’t want to be in the limelight. What she was having a very big thing with Mick Jagger. And then what happened, she was going with Eric Clapton, and Eric Clapton introduced her to Mick Jagger, and then Mick Jagger started calling her, and she ended up going with Mick Jagger. And then she dropped Mick Jagger for Donald, and that’s where it is right now. And again, he’s not making any commitments to Carla either just so you understand.
Interviewer: What kinds of things have they done? I mean, do they go out? [Indiscernible]
John Miller: Well, they just get along very good and she’s very pretty and all of that stuff. But, you know, he doesn’t have any idea who she is, right? When he meets the right woman, it’s going to be a great relationship and it’s going to be a very, you know, because he believes strongly in the marriage concept. In all fairness, he was married for 12 years and he was happily married for 12, you know, for many of those years, I guess, and he believes in it, especially in this society today, I can tell you. But he believes in it.
Interviewer: Where is he living now? I mean is he --
John Miller: He lives in Trump Tower. He has the apartment at the top of Trump Tower.
Interviewer: Okay. And Ivana also has an apartment at Trump Tower?
John Miller: She has an apartment at Trump Tower, but the court order is that she has to leave within a period of less than a year.
Interviewer: Yeah. Right. Okay. Listen, can I --
[End of file]
[End of transcript]
And people are gonna vote for that; to quote Carlin: "Have everybody lost their fucking mind in this country??"
No, they haven't. Everyone knows that Trump is a shit posting egomaniac master troll. It's completely unimportant in this election. The democrats ran a socialist on the ballot dreaming of Denmark. What a completely garbage idea.
As an outsider, had he tried any other tactic they would have buried the shit out of him and his campaign would have flopped immediately. Had he tried to be the super reasonable adult in the room? Rand Paul would have crushed him. Had he tried to be the sleeziest liar? Ted Cruz is the king of sleezy lies. Had he not out-toughed the tough guy Christie? Nothing would have happened.
What the GoP didn't have? A master troll shit poster who knows how to completely dominate news cycles because he understands that he's exploited where their loyalties lie and shown the American public that in full. He also understands that in their greed they will never turn him down because he draws eyeballs, ratings, and clicks.
Trump is a fucking genius. He's also a complete fucking buffoon. But we're willing to take a man who has these natural instincts to know how to get the most out of his money, and who knows how to exploit the media to new heights. He's also right about a lot of things when you get to the core of his message.
He's reminded people that they are the invisible hand that guides the market, and that they have power. If he says to boycott X that stock price is going to fall and he's kept thousands of jobs in America by simply hinting at what he might do.
I think Trump is better for small businesses than Hillary. Hillary is better for big corporations & corporatism in general. They both have massive problems and there is truly no 'great ideal candidate'. You just have to choose the lesser of two evils. So the Trump voters are willing to roll the dice, crack open a beer and enjoy the shit posting while shouting 'MURICA FIRST.
There's a lot more great things he's done that I haven't even listed yet. So yes, people are willing to take an egomaniac buffoon. He's also in front of the camera's far more than any other candidate doing massive amounts of interviews and letting the American people get to know him. Hillary is like the polar opposite right now, she's not constantly doing interviews with CNN or Fox. She's laying low in comparison because that's her ticket.
So Trump voters will expect Trump to play the political game because he's going to need over a billion for his election at some point. And hopefully he picks a good VP because if he pulls something absolutely retarded like Palin he's dead. But so long as people believe he'll stay true to his core message they're happy.
I have a list of like 100 things I wish were different about Trump. That he was a better man / candidate in many ways. But he's probably played this election the best he could have played it as an outsider. He's dominated the news for nearly a year straight, and it's on purpose.
It's really important to keep exposing the media. NYT forcing the narrative that Trump hates women gets debunked by one of the women they interviewed for instance. + Show Spoiler +
I don't think someone who says that America should default its debt would be great for small businesses. He would be a disaster for everyone.
You talk socialism and Denmark. One, Denmark is doing more than ok, and Scandinavia, where I live, is a much, much better place to live in than America. I think Sanders platform is doing a lot of good to American politics. But that's irrelevant, because he is not going to be nominated anyway.
Clinton will pursue Obama's politics, which has been very, very successful on an economic level. Job creations in the private sector, growth, looking around the developed world, this is a fairy tale.
I agree, Trump has talent. He is a true populist; he does not care one bit about having a coherent platform, because he does not care one bit about what he would do once in office. That's the worst of the worst of politics, people interested in getting to power without giving a fuck about the country, about changing anything. It's about them, and that makes them difficult to resist because they can say one stupid thing after another, it doesn't even matter. He is just a boastful lunatic with an orator talent. But so are Le Pen, Farage, and, sorry to bring it up (they have nothing much in common except for that), so was Hitler, who, as far as convincing people was also a "fucking genius" as you say. That makes makes and made all of them qualified to access office, and that would make him one of the greatest disaster in recent history if he managed to win this election.
People are willing to vote for him because they are angry. That's not a good reason. What is at stake in that election is our future. Trump would make it considerably darker. Ruining the future of a nation because you are pissed is just irresponsible. So, yeah, I'm sorry to say that they have lost their fucking mind.
EDIT: there is no invisible hand guiding the market. Unregulated capitalism has failed again and again. And Trump is a protectionist, he doesn't "remind people about the invisible hand". You mix up with libertarians, some mainstream republican, and all the right people who still believe in vodoo economics.
EPT
