actually being pres was never the goal

[space otter]

actually being pres was never the goal  but a damn good way to get more recognition..
can we say that the repug nom was a case of  hoist on your on petard
..well maybe the russians will watch





Donald Trump May Launch TV Venture After Election
Son-in-law and top adviser Jared Kushner reportedly "approached" a firm specializing in media deals.
10/17/2016 11:10 am ET | Updated 49 minutes ago

NEW YORK ? Can Donald Trump turn voters into viewers?

There have been rumblings for months that the media-obsessed former reality star's endgame is to launch a media company after the election to capitalize on the support he's received.

That theory gained more traction Monday as the Financial Times reported that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner spoke with a boutique media deal-making firm about the prospect of launching a television network. Kushner, who owns the New York Observer, contacted LionTree founder and chief executive Aryeh Bourkoff within the past couple months, according to the paper. 

Trump denied last month that he's had any talks about starting a media company, whether alongside disgraced former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, who has recently advised him, or other conservative media figures. Ailes reportedly has a non-compete clause that could prevent him from launching a Fox News competitor.

But a source close to Trump told HuffPost the Republican nominee assumes Ailes would be involved in a post-election media venture, presuming that a compensation package large enough would entice him in.

"Trump is saying, 'I'm not going to give up trying to be president, but just in case it doesn't happen, I want to have a voice for me and my people ... we will not lose the voice we've built,'" the source said.

The Republican nominee often refers to "the stunningly large numbers of persons who voted for me in the primary," according to the source.

Vanity Fair reported in June on Trump's media plans and noted that Kushner said at a dinner party how "the people here don't understand what I'm seeing" and that "you go to these arenas and people go crazy for him." The New York Times added in August that Trump and Kushner had "quietly explored becoming involved with a media holding, either by investing in one or by taking one over."



Kushner, the scion of a New Jersey real estate family who married Trump's daughter Ivanka in 2009, has been one of Trump's closest advisers. One Trump source recently told The New Yorker that Kushner ? who keeps a low profile and rarely gives interviews ? has been Trump's "real campaign manager."

A Kushner representative didn't respond to a request for comment on Monday.

In addition to Kushner and Ailes,Trump could presumably also turn to Steve Bannon, who left the conservative nationalist news site Breitbart in August to head up Trump's campaign. Bannon has previously said he'd return to Breitbart after the election.

It's unprecedented for a major party nominee to be considering how to profit off his support before an election's over. And conversations about a post-election media startup reportedly began long before Trump's poll numbers dropped.

While speculation has centered around the idea of "Trump TV," launching an entirely new cable television channel would be very difficult and costly.

The Al Jazeera Media Network spent $500 million to buy Current TV as a way to gain distribution into 60 million homes for a future U.S.-based channel. The Qatar-owned media company, which built a large-scale television operation based in New York, lost another half a billion dollars before shutting down after two years of failing to attract an audience.

Trump could go the subscription-based digital TV route ? though another conservative media star, Sarah Palin, failed to make such a venture work.

The source close to Trump suggested he'd likely seek well-financed partners who already have the advertising and cable distribution in place, rather than trying to start from scratch.

"They've always partnered with somebody who had money and know how," the source said. "They wouldn't say, 'Let's go start a media empire.' They'd say, 'Let's see who already has access to cable.'"

This story has been updated to include comments from a source close to Donald Trump and a tweet from Mike Allen.


oh yeah for the lazies
Shakespeare's phrase, "hoist with his own petard," is an idiom that means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap", implying that one could be lifted (blown) upward by one's own bomb, or in other words, be foiled by one's own plan.

[Pimander]

Trump supporters are so obsessed with rejecting the establishment/elite, they would vote for the elite billionaire Trump if he molested a woman in front of them.  Reason has nothing to do with it!

[rdunk]

PI, that statement reflects an incorrect understanding of the American political condition. Most of the people who are supporting Trump see a far better America with him as President! 

[ArMaP]

Most of the people who are supporting Trump see a far better America with him as President! 

Why?

[petrus4]

I have suspected this for a long time.  I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on Trump, but I had seen him in enough different contexts before this election to know, that close to not a single word that he has uttered in relation to it, has been sincere or the truth.

I believe that both Trump and Bernie were decoys who were working in collusion with Hillary; the point being for both of them to forfeit or be removed at some point, so that things would still appear plausibly "democratic," but with it simply being a case of Hillary being the last person standing.  Trump is the rural white supremacist candidate, while Bernie was given to the Occupy Wall Street demographic.  Both groups predictably and enthusiastically fell for their appointed pawn, hook, line, and sinker.

Bernie somewhat predictably also tried to revolt at the last minute, but threats were apparently issued to his family, so he capitulated.  Trump will either forfeit voluntarily at some point, or will have his remaining credibility destroyed with additional manufactured scandals.

[Pimander]

PI, that statement reflects an incorrect understanding of the American political condition. Most of the people who are supporting Trump see a far better America with him as President! 

What policy does he have that would make America better?

[rdunk]

What policy does he have that would make America better?

What he and his government will do is save the United States of America from continuing down the path to virtual destruction!! Right not the borders are essentially open, at Obama's insistence. And most every thing else this country has always stood for in this world is going to hell in a hand basket!! Trump is at least is promising to make corrections in all pf the places that direly need correcting.

I am not even sure what is the right word for where this country in heading on it present course - which is pretty much the course Hillary promises to continue even further, toward Fascism/Marxism/anarchy/etc/etc.

A major piece of the good of this country has related to a Supreme Court that judges according to Constitutional Law, not making law. And Hillary has strongly committed to further fill the Supreme court with her far left leaning Saul Aliniskyite type of people.

Hillary has committed to do away with several of the Constitutional Amendments. Her commitment is to have"open borders"!!

........AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An election Of Hillary Clinton as the president of this country would virtually destroy this country's ability to continue to be a formidable force of good for this world!!

[zorgon]

Why?

Because he is a BUSINESSMAN not a politician...  why is it so hard for you guys to see that this one fact is a HUGE difference? Just this morning I got new insurance and the Agent menrtioned that what this country needs is a businessman running it

The USA and all the local governments right down to city and county level are CORPORATIONS  and its about time they get run like one With accountability to shareholders (We the people...)

It is really very simple... all the carreer policians care about is keeping their cushy seats at the public trough, trump is rich and doesn't need it, just like Kennedy was. Let's just hope the same fate isn't in Trump's cards if he gets in

[zorgon]

What policy does he have that would make America better?

Closing the border to illegals for one I know many mexicans who worked hard to come here legally that will vote for him because of that promise. (Trump did get 45% of the Hispanic vote in the primaries in las Vegas)

[ArMaP]

With accountability to shareholders (We the people...)

That's where I think that idea fails.

[Pimander]

That's where I think that idea fails.

I could not agree more.  Only people with money are shareholders.

rdunk, you named no policy, you just blathered about Hilary Clinton.  If Trump wins that is nothing to do with it.  I find the whole thing rather pathetic.

Hating the establishment is not a manifesto for governing the wealthiest country on the planet.

[rdunk]

Pimander, maybe you should take the time to read what I posted a time or two more. I think I covered both pretty well.  Hillary is going to take the country on over the cliff of no return for our country, and Donald Trump is committed to working to save it, with a huge host of stated "policy" intentions - if you really want to know the finite details, you can easily find them on the net, or listen to some of is speeches.

If you are interested, here is one video wherein Trump does cover several of his policy issues!

[Pimander]

Pimander, maybe you should take the time to read what I posted a time or two more. I think I covered both pretty well.

No you didn't.  Saying one candidtate is going to "take a country over the cliff" or whatever and the other is not is not explaining what I asked.

I'll put the question in a clearer way.  What, in your opinion, of Trump's policies , is going to sort out these problems? If you can't say it starts to sound like a personality cult rather than a political choice to vote for Trump

And stop going on about Clinton. Lets say she wasn't even who he was standing against.  I don't think Clinton is the answer either.

[rdunk]

Pimander, if I were going to go into all of the details here, I would have been doing it here all along. But, as has been said, politics is not an item of delight here.

This is not Hillary's first run at the politics bucket, and she has so much very well known unacceptable political performance outcomes that should have disqualified her for any office, much less for the top job in the nation. Without a mainstream media that fails to tell the whole and true story about her, she likely would be on her way to jail, rather than on the ticket for president.

Of course, Trump does openly admit that as a businessman, he has played the politicians too!!

Just very briefly some of Trumps policies are:

1. Close the borders for everything except legal immigration - with a wall

2. Rebuild the military, which 8 years of Obama has devastated

3. Rework the tax system, including drastic reduction of biusiness tax

4. Schools back to totally state guided - no common core

5. Reformation of imports. with import taxes that discourage companies moving mnaufacturing out of country.

6. Reform the coal policies for restarting coal mines/labor

7. Work toward Constitutionally limiting term limits for Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen - not lifetime jobs

8. No mainstream govt healthcare

9 No global warming stuff

etc/etc

Here is a comparison of candidates with some additional information:

[petrus4]

What he and his government will do is save the United States of America from continuing down the path to virtual destruction!!

There is a concept I'd like to introduce you to here, rdunk.  One that I think could help you rather a lot.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Operational_definition

I'm not an atheist, but that doesn't stop me from ideologically stealing from their more useful elements, here and there.  They of course wouldn't mind at all, because they want every possible footsoldier in their army anyway.

But to my point.  An operational definition of something, is a definition that is specific enough to be tested, via mathematical or other means.  The definition, in my mind at least, of whether or not something is testably true, is if I can then use the answer of said tests, as the basis of either forward or reverse tests, (derivative or recursive, respectively) and have said subsequent tests work.

So when you say, for example, that Obama is destroying the country; I would agree with you, but the main specific way in which he is, that I know about, is that he is authorising the use of drones to kill people remotely.

Notice what I've done, here; I've reduced a vague, irreduceable statement, (Obama is destroying the country) to one which is specifically verifiable (Obama is authorising the use of drones) and is therefore proveably correct or incorrect.

This is the type of thinking which led me to believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed via controlled demolition involving thermite, for instance.  I went and learned about the thermal, visual, and audial byproducts of thermite, and on looking at the eyewitness testimony from 9/11, I discovered that all of said byproducts or symptoms were accounted for during and after the incident.  In other words, it looked, walked, and quacked like a duck to a sufficient degree that to me it was clear that it was a duck.  I also did not believe that what happened was consistent with the byproducts that I would expect from such scenarios as the use of underground tactical nuclear weapons, for example.

This is not anti-Christian, either; Jesus was extremely logical in his thinking.  The statement that a good tree can only produce good fruit, essentially means that positive or negative acts, are ultimately committed for no other reason than because they reflect the moral nature of the actor.  This may not seem to be true even in the actor's own mind; there have been mass murderers who told themselves that they were still trying to help people.  It is, however, true on an ultimate basis.

Right not the borders are essentially open, at Obama's insistence.

One thing I've never been able to understand, is why some of you apparently think that your country being flooded with hordes of South American women, would somehow be a negative thing.

And most every thing else this country has always stood for in this world is going to hell in a hand basket!!

Although I've been much more negative on this point than I probably should have been, in reality America's current degeneracy can be reduced down to a single cause; over-extension.  Anything which is Yang or positively polarised, must be small by definition; the larger the thing in question grows, the greater the likelihood that the polarity of said thing will switch to Yin, which is entropic or dissipatory.

Such is occurring now, with America.  There have been too many foreign bases built, and the country has got itself into far too many of other people's arguments; arguments in which America never really had any genuine interest in, or should not have.

The American national natal chart, like Caesar himself, is solar Cancerian.  Cancer as a sign can be imperialistic; but said empire grows in exceptionally small increments, over a long period of time.  The American government didn't fight a single war to take over the planet, like Germany tried to.  The American strategy was incremental; gradual.  A single treaty here, a lone foreign military base there.  Then you wake up one morning and realise that a latter day version of Rome has suddenly sprung up underneath you while you were asleep.  Empires are like weeds; they grow so slowly that it's invisible, but once you let the seeds in, eventually the garden will get overgrown and everything else will be choked.

You need to correct that.  Empire is not good for anybody.  No matter how altruistic or noble the origin or host country of any empire starts out being, empire will always corrupt them in the end.  Empire destroys congruence.  You end up with lots of influences which might be completely contradictory to what you were initially trying to accomplish.

Close the foreign bases.  Bring the troops home.  Use clean, renewable energy instead of oil., and do whatever else is necessary to establish real independence in international terms.  That is what I think America as a country should be doing, at this point.  The neocons have not learned yet, that there is no such thing as non-reciprocal dominance.  You can claim to dominate someone else as much as you like, but if they have something you need, (like oil) then the simple reality is that they have power over you, no matter how many guns or tanks or planes or nuclear bombs you might have.  Bomb an oil field with nuclear weapons, and if you are reliant on that oil, then you lose just as much as the native people who lived there.

I am not even sure what is the right word for where this country in heading on it present course - which is pretty much the course Hillary promises to continue even further, toward Fascism/Marxism/anarchy/etc/etc.

The reason why there isn't a single word for Hillary's ideology, is because Hillary isn't following an ideology herself.



Mark Knopfler describes very well in this song, precisely what Hillary is motivated by.  The desire to have a never-ending stream of massive amounts of money and power, in exchange for nothing of positive value to anyone else at all.  Being a tyrant isn't necessarily about affirmatively getting what you want, as much as it is about making sure that no one else can prevent you from getting what you want.  We normally think of proactivity as a positive thing; but not in the case of psychopaths.

A major piece of the good of this country has related to a Supreme Court that judges according to Constitutional Law, not making law. And Hillary has strongly committed to further fill the Supreme court with her far left leaning Saul Aliniskyite type of people.

Nepotism or cronyism is one of the major downsides with Cancerian energy, yes.  Patriotism is only really nepotism on a geopolitical scale.  It's a case of thinking that your people are better or more desirable than anyone else's, purely because they are your people.  Then everyone else has the same mentality, and before you know it, you're firing ICBMs at each other, while the UFOs look on in horror.