0

Everyone (for most definitions of "everyone") seems to think that the USA is strictly a two-party system, and there are no choices besides Democrat and Republican. If that is true, then the election will boil down to a choice between the Lesser of Two Evils. The truth is that there are a large number of political parties putting up candidates for president, and also some independent candidate, such as comedian Ron White.

It's also true that a so-called "third-party" candidate doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Tucson of being elected, and that the system is rigged so that the winner will always be either a Dem or a Rep. But this year we can utilize the system to send a powerful message to both major parties. On my blog, I'm advocating that people vote for None of the Above. ( Click Here)

If enough people vote for a third-party candidate - ANY third-party candidate - then neither of the major candidates will get more than 50% of the popular vote. This denies them a mandate for leadership.

Going one step beyond that, if enough people vote for a third-party candidate, then neither of the major candidates will get more than 33% of the popular vote. This sends a clear message that the majority would prefer ANYBODY but them.

Realistically, the next president will be either Clinton or Trump. But this None of the Above strategy at least gives We the People the chance to tell them how we really feel about it.

(My apologies for the gratuitous capitalization. At least I left out the "gratuitous quotation marks" and, the, excessive, commas ... and ... ellipsiseseses.)

Edited by rdepew: Adding the URL to my blog entry

0

I've seen Ron White. In some ways he is as offensive as Trump (but in different ways). The only thing of his I liked was "you can't fix stupid."

A third party candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. Unfortunately, running a third party can have an undesired effect. Just ask Ralph Nader who has since admitted that running was a huge mistake. Correct me if I am wrong, but if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, doesn't Congress get to pick the president? A Republican held Congress? And they don't have to pick from the running candidates. They could pick, for example, Paul Ryan.

I wish the media could be held to account for the mess that they largely created. The media gave Trump billions in free air time. People want to be entertained, not informed and Trump is nothing if not entertaining. Being entertained is easy. Being informed requires thought and that takes effort. And the media, being profit driven, will offer whatever brings in the biggest audience.

People don't realize that Trump doesn't care what people are saying about him as long as the conversation is about him. I fear that the election coverage is going to fall into two categories:

  1. What Trump is saying
  2. What Clinton is saying about Trump

If you watched the latest Samantha Bee you saw that the media would rather show an empty podium for an hour while waiting for Trump to arrive than cover Clinton discussing the issues.

You get the president you deserve.

0

And I'm aware of the irony in titling this thread "Trump". But if I'd labeled it Clinton would anyone have read it?

0

This sends a clear message that the majority would prefer ANYBODY but them.

40% Americans don't vote at all, so the actually percent of the electorate that endorsed Obama was ~25%. The current UK majority government won only 37% of the popular vote, the last two majority governments in Canada won less than 40% of the popular vote yet all three act as though they have a mandate to ram through everything and anything they want despite repeated public backlashes & protests.

Politicians don't care how strong their mandate is or isn't, all they care about is what legally they are allowed to do. If they "win" they feel entitled to do as they please regardless of the margin or turnout.

0

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote then you are saying "I don't care what happens." Having said that, I count the percentage of the vote received rather than a percentage of the total possible votes (had everyone voted). It's not the government's fault if people are too apathetic to vote. What would you have the government do? Hold a referendum on every bill to see if the majority is in favour? If people are too apathetic to vote once every four years for a government they are not going to vote on every bill. It would be impossible to legislate this mess. Let's not even discuss the cost to implement this.

Again, having said that, I DO believe that certain things should be put to a public referendum. These would include things like Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), NAFTA (and its predecessor, FTA), and more locally (to me), the sale of MTS (a Manitoba Public Utility). TPP will completely change the relationship between government, consumers, and big business. It would, in some cases, give big business more power than governments. In the case of FTA, Brian Mulroney (before becoming Prime Minister) said that free trade would be the death of Canada and he would have "none of it." After being elected, however, he couldn't ram it through fast enough. In the cast of MTS (Manitoba Telephone System), Gary Filmon and his Conservatives promised during the campaign that MTS would remain in public hands. It was sold during his first term as Premier of Manitoba. It was discovered years later that the plans to sell it were drawn up even before the election was called.

Governments can not be trusted to act in the best interests of the people. Referenda on MAJOR issues would act as a check.

0

If Clinton wants to make sure that the Bernie Sanders people still come out to vote (many have said they won't) she should be smart and pick Bernie as her running mate.

0

Referenda on MAJOR issues would act as a check.

Referrenda have their own problems. It was a referendum that killed the Charlottown accord even though the federal government and all the provincial premiers supported it. That decision, which seems to have been driven by the fact that people hated Mulrouney rather than the actual accord which was extremely complicated, led to the second Quebec referendum where <60,000 votes kept Canada as a single unified whole. Plus there was tons of stuff dealing with the rights of indigenous people and Senate reform which hasn't been properly revisited.

The UK referendum on membership of the EU likewise has huge swaths of people confused which hasn't been helped by a complete lack of vision by the Leave camp. There is a reasonable chance "the people" will vote to leave based on restricting immigration but the UK parliament (which is at least 2/3rds pro-remain) would force a deal similar to Norway which would leave free movement of people with the EU (hence 0 effect on immigration) in exchange for staying in the single market.

Edited by Agilemind

0

As I recall, the big sticking point in the Charlottetown Accords was the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. Those who opposed its inclusion (including me) saw this as the thin edge of the wedge which Quebec would use as justification for special status privileges. While I recognize that Quebec society is distinct (and also appreciate the richness of those distinctions), I also recognize that other Canadian societies (indigenous and Metis as two examples) are also distinct. Recognition of these differences do not belong in a constitution, other than, perhaps, to note that Canada contains multiple distinct societies. Specific recognition of only one elevates that one above the others.

I believe that when a political party goes into an election with plans to fundamentally change the country, it must reveal those plans during the election. Obviously, in Canada, (in the cases of MTS, Meech Lake, FTA and Charlettetown - all Progressive Conservative measures) these intentions were hidden from the voters because it was believed that revealing them would cost votes.

Trump just throws out every bat-shit crazy idea (build a wall, ban Muslims, deport 11,000,000 people) that occurs to him, then tries to backpedal by saying "those are just suggestions". The good thing about Trump (if this can be considered a good thing) is that the steaming pile of shit that is his platform is right out in the open where we can all get a good whiff. If the unthinkable happens and he actually wins, nobody should be surprised by anything he does.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

It should also be noted that one year later, in the election following the rejection of the Charlottetown Accords, Brian Mulroney's former majority government was reduced to a mere two parliamentary seats.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

I also recognize that other Canadian societies (indigenous and Metis as two examples) are also distinct

As did the Charlottetown accord, the Metis would have been formally recognized for the first time and indigenous groups would have had the right to self-governance, the Senate would have been elected and less region-based, and Canada would not longer be stuck in the awkward situation of Quebec not signing the current constitution. Quebec does have special status rights in that more powers have been devolved to their national assemblies than the parliaments of other provinces, and it has guarantees on the number of seats in the House of commons and Harper passed legislation recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.

Charlottetown failed because the people were fed up with consitutional discussions and hated Mulroney.

Same reason Quebec and Alberta have had their fluke wins by the NDP. And to get back on topic, the same frustration could be fueling Trump's supporters.

PS I think Trump's "openness" is the best camoflage in the world. He says so many vague and contradicting things almost everyone can interpret his word salad and change-by-the-hour whims to mean he agrees with themselves.

PPS Though I personally think our current fixation on specific policy platforms is misguided. Every politician has to break their promises because the world (and available data) changes sometimes by the hour and policies have to change with it - holding to a policy at all costs is deeply irresponsible, eg.the Republics with their stupid pledge to not raise taxes. Politics should be about values, so that people can trust their polician will make the best decision according to their values and based on the best available evidence, even when that evidence has to be kept secret or is too complex to explain in a 10 second news bite.

0

PS I think Trump's "openness" is the best camoflage in the world. He says so many vague and contradicting things almost everyone can interpret his word salad and change-by-the-hour whims to mean he agrees with themselves.

A tried and true technique. Yassir Arafat used this technique, as have many others. The peacenik types could point to a few things that made hims sound like he was open to non-violent negotiation, and the radicals, well they, in my view, could point to a lot MORE that he said that they could interpret as him not being completely against using violence as a means to an end.

The corollary to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" for politicians is "When in Rome, tell the Romans what they want to hear." When you talk to union members, tell them you're pro-union. When you talk to businessmen, say you're against unions. It was easier to do this in the past when film of every single rally wasn't broadcast worldwide so that both pro- and anti-gun-control factions heard every word you said.

That said, humans have a remarkable ability to hear only what they want to hear. Trump knows this. Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, has a blog and in many, many posts, he analyses Trump's strategy. I think it's required reading for anyone trying to understand Trump. He claims to not be pro-Trump, but it's hard to read his blog and believe that.

I still think his Achilles Heel is his pettiness and his inability to not punch back at any and all insults. Every skilled negotiator/dealmaker I've ever met knows what he cares about and what he doesn't care about and doesn't let himself get diverted from the big issues. If they think someone who is a loser is insulting them, they don't call them a loser, they just ignore them. Why doesn't Trump?

0

I think it's required reading for anyone trying to understand Trump. He claims to not be pro-Trump, but it's hard to read his blog and believe that.

I managed to finish one of them but the between-the-lines admiration and almost worship of Trump (and disgusting implied sexism) was too much of a turn-off to read the others.

I still think his Achilles Heel is his pettiness and his inability to not punch back at any and all insults.

In actual governance, I 100% agree. But during a 24h news-cycle campaign, I'm not sure it is an Achilles Heel. Clinton tried/is trying the pick-your-battles strategy with the e-mails "scandal" and it seems to have mostly failed,

0

Based on the last few years of GOP double think and non stop Fox (and friends) blather, the US should change the inscription on the seal from E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) to something like carpe per diem (seize the money) or perhaps just go with Charley Sheen's more succinct, winning.

Does anyone recall when you were taught, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game? It's been replaced with last man standing.

0

Less than seven hours after the Orlando shootings, Trump is taking credit for having predicted it. Unbelievably, newswoman, Savvanah Guthrie, had the balls to reply "Why are you giving yourself credit for predicting something that everyone knows will happen?"

In related news, Ivan Volsky has posted a list of lawmakers who had gone public with their thoughts and prayers for the victims, along with the amount of money each has received from the NRA for voting against gun control measures that might have helped prevent just such a disaster.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

I think that Trump's biggest advantage is his appeal to headline-chasing media coupled with his brazen ability to just say anything and nothing at the same time, and with full confidence. Mainstream media lays down for him at every turn. And when they like to pretend to do journalism by questioning him on one of his countless questionable statements, he just brushes it off with incoherent babble and a bullyish attitude, and the interviewers invariably cave in quickly, not to lose their precious access to him.

With this kind of media treatment, there is no surprise that he beat all his opponents in the primary. He has all the free publicity he wants, and he always come out looking to be on top of the interviewers and debaters. And this immunity allows him to use a kind of populist shotgun approach to politics that has rarely been attempted in a high profile case in this day and age of information. In a low information setting, it is possible for a candidate to promise everything and its opposite to see what sticks, and it is also possible for a person to win even with a background that, if known, would be most distasteful to most people (such as fraud, silver-spoon birth, terrible business record, mafia relations, etc.).

I am confident that there will be a tipping point though. I think that at some point, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to shelter Trump for the sake of ratings, enough criticism will come out and this unstoppable train will become a train wreck that the media will be happy to endulge on.

But it is quite crazy that there is a good chance that both candidates for the presidency could end up under indictment. Trump for his Trump University fraud. Hillary for her breach of security and the Saudi arms deals (and other shady business of the Clinton foundation). Every part of this system is so messed up (corporate media, money in politics, the Washington pundit bubble, etc.) that this is the kind of aberration we get.

0

There is a perfect example of Trump's "this is how to fix problems" approach in the classic Monty Python - How to Do It sketch.

I see they have changed the rules for the Republican Convention for the first vote to allow delegates to "vote their conscience" for religious or other "deeply held" personal reasons. In other words, screw the rules; we're going to cheat him out of the nomination that he won fair and square. I also hear Trump talking about starting his own cable news channel. I can only hope it succeeds as well as Trump Steaks, Trump University and just about everything else with the Trump brand.

If Clinton and/or Trump are brought up on charges then they sure as hell had better cue them up behind the war crimes trials for Bush and Cheney.

By the way, nice to see you back here Mike.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

mafia relations

I'm not sure you could be a New York City building tycoon in the early 90's or before without at least rubbing elbows with the mob, not if you intendended to use concrete, glass, or steel in your buildings or hire union workers to build those buildings, plus garbage removal, catering, plumbing, etc., etc. Add in his involvement in Atlantic City casinos and prizefighting in that era and it's even more of a sure thing that he at least KNEW bad people. Everyone working successfully in that environment will be approached by sleazy people who will try to bribe and/or threaten them. Some people are tough enough and honest enough to give a firm NO. Those people often miss out on a lot of deals. I never read "The Art Of The Deal", but if there's no chapter in there titled "How To Say No To The Mob", I'm thinking he said "Yes" and there are way too many hits for the "Donald Trump mafia" internet search. Where there's smoke, there's fire, plus remember those early debates where he was bragging about how you can't trust the people he was running against because he donates money to all of them (regardless of political ideology) and he therefore owns them? He was BRAGGING about bribing people/having crooked politicians in his pocket, yet somehow all the taint was on the person ACCEPTING the bribe, but he, the guy doing the bribing, was somehow left untainted. It doesn't pass the smell test that he would bribe government officials to make money, but not give money to the mob to make money.

Then again I'm not sure the Clintons are completely clean in that area either. :) Marc Rich anyone? The Clintons have the advantage, though, of being falsely accused of so many ridiculous conspiracies that when you google "Clinton mafia", a bunch of stuff comes up, but you have to weed through a whole bunch of fake stories and you get fed up, so whenever there's a REAL scandal (and there are many), Hillary can point out that they were accused of killing Vince Foster and Ron Brown too and say it's all BS.

I think Thoma Jefferson had it right when he said, paraphrasing: "Anyone who WANTS the job of President shouldn't HAVE the job of President". Of course he wanted the job... Why ANYONE would want the job now is beyond me. There's a reason presidents appear to have aged far more than eight years when they leave office. Maybe that's why we have such lousy candidates. Democracies get the government they deserve.

I do enjoy watching my intelligent, decent, non-racist, non-misogynist, non-bigoted Republican friends squirming every time their candidate opens his mouth. They can't vote for Trump, but they can't quite admit that they believe Hillary would be preferable.

0

I managed to finish one of them but the between-the-lines admiration and almost worship of Trump (and disgusting implied sexism) was too much of a turn-off to read the others.

I read a little more of Scott Adams' pre-Trump blogging regarding science and he's clearly one of those "Buy him for what he's worth, sell him for what he thinks he's worth, and you'll be a billionaire" guys. He's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is, so his analysis is quite flawed (not surprising from a guy who always says that facts and rational thinking don't matter). However, I still thinks he (possibly accidentally) gives a window into the con-man/manipulater playbook/mindset, possibly because he himself is one, so he knows the game.

I also hear Trump talking about starting his own cable news channel.

See, that's the thing. He enjoys being a tycoon and running all these businesses as a CEO (i.e. can run them however he wants to without anyone blocking him, unlike the government), but the Presidency is a full-time job, and one where you (I think) have to divest yourself of your business dealings to avoid a conflict-of-interest. I have this weird feeling that Trump thinks he'll be able to run his business empire WHILE he's president. It's one or the other. He can either run a cable news network or be president, but not both. Or am I wrong on this? Surely there is some law/rule prohibiting this? Or did no one bother to make one because it was so ludicrous that no one thought it would ever come up. That would be interesting. Ban everyone but Trump News from the White House Press Corps.

0

Presidency is a full-time job, and one where you (I think) have to divest yourself of your business dealings to avoid a conflict-of-interest

I tried to look this up and found a couple sources saying there isn't a rule against it for elected officials (non-elected members of government do have to divest themselves). So he would have to voluntarily divest, which I think is pretty unlikely since the success of his business empire is part of his campaign strategy.

Then again I'm not sure the Clintons are completely clean in that area either.

There was a national news story about mob connections to local and national politics in Canada a few years ago and every single political party declined to comment on it. Plus wasn't Robert Kennedy assassinated because he tried to take on the mob?

It's probably a good assumption all politicians who have been at it a significant amount of time have had to deal with the mob. So it is a question of how dirty they are not whether they are clean.

-1

Trump has two advantages as far as I can tell:
1) the ability to sound 100% confident while saying a bald-face lie.

  • Seriously Trump doesn't care one iota for what is true

2) his mastery of the Gish Gallop strategy, which drowns his opponents in the sea of lies and nonsense.

  • Reporters can't challenge his statements because it would take an hour to unpick everything that was wrong in one of his sentences.

Edited by Agilemind

0

Where there's smoke, there's fire

I'm more of a believer in "where there's smoke there's smoke." A common tactic is to accuse an opponent of something then, when they react, reply "looks like I hit a nerve. Must be something to it then." If I accuse you publicly of being a pedophile and you react with outrage, is that an indication that "there must be something to it."

Not that I'm defending Trump.

and one where you (I think) have to divest yourself of your business dealings to avoid a conflict-of-interest.

Just remember that in politics (at least if you are a Republican, you can avoid conflict of interest by selling off your business interests to your wife like Rick Scott did.

1

If I accuse you publicly of being a pedophile and you react with outrage, is that an indication that "there must be something to it."

And if I don't react with outrage, there must be something to it because anyone who was innocent who was accused of it would react with outrage. Win-win for the accuser, sort of like exercising your right to remain silent: "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about..."

It's probably a good assumption all politicians who have been at it a significant amount of time have had to deal with the mob. So it is a question of how dirty they are not whether they are clean.

I think you can stay clean. It's very difficult, but it's doable and has been done. I think your RFK example is one of them. Doubt he ever was corrupted.

Plus wasn't Robert Kennedy assassinated because he tried to take on the mob?

What was I saying about staying clean again? Hmm...

The mob and the JFK/RFK assassinations are a whole 'nuther thread in and of itself. The problem is the six degrees of separation phenomenon turns into one or two degrees of separation when you're dealing with the mob and powerful politicians/builders. Thus if Bob Smith is an honest long-standing powerful politician and Bill Jones is a long-standing powerful gangster in the same corrupt town, the odds of Bob Smith meeting with several of Bill Jones' cohorts in his dealings over time is pretty much 100%, so if that's all it takes to taint Bob Smith, he's tainted. Thus Reverend Jim's "Where there's smoke, there's smoke". It's not always fire. But with Donald Trump, since I'm presuming him guilty until proven innocent, I'm calling it fire. Clinton too. They both forfeited their benefit of the doubt status long ago.

Votes + Comments
No argument there.
0

I am confident that there will be a tipping point though.

I wish I shared your confidence. You are hopefully correct, but it seems like that tipping point should have come much, much earlier. I consider Donald Trump a fringe candidate and I normally think of the "fringe" as comprising perhaps one or two percent of the population, which the rest of us ignore without risk. I'm not a Republican, but it's by no means a fringe party. It's one of the two dominant parties. A very sizable number of non-fringe people must have not reached their tipping point yet, which leads me to wonder what MORE does he have to do/say to make these people decide he's unacceptable as president? He has roughly a 30% favorability rating in the polls, which is damn low, but still, 30% of the population has not yet reached their tipping points, unless they are lying to the pollsters or there is some other problem with the polls. That's a lot of people.

What I'd like to see is a poll asking people two questions. The first question would be something along the lines of "Do you believe that Donald Trump believes he is telling the truth when he says that 81% of White murder victims were killed by Black assailants?" folllowed by "Do you have a favorable opinion of Donald Trump?" According to the FBI, the real figure is 15%. I'm curious to know what percentage of my fellow citizens would answer no to the first question and yes to the second. That's the group that is not being completely conned by Donald Trump, but instead knows he's either lying or doesn't care about the truth about stuff like that and is willing to appeal to racist tendencies, yet still like him anyway. I fear that group might be larger than I'd like to think it is and that some of them are my neighbors.

0

Filings on election expenses show that of the money Trump has spent to date on his campaign, approximately twenty percent has gone to businesses owned by Donald Trump. Events are hosted, whenever possible, in Trump owned properties. Trump water and Trump wine is served. He uses his personal jet for the campaign but the jet is actually leased to the campaign. The forty-six million dollars that he "self funded" was not technically not "self funded". It was written up as a personal loan from Trump to his campaign and can be repaid to Trump from other monies raised during the campaign. It has been speculated that Trump may be the first person to run in a presidential campaign and come out the other end showing a profit.

He may be a racist asshole but he's not a complete moron. Con man? Yes.

0

I consider Donald Trump a fringe candidate and I normally think of the "fringe" as comprising perhaps one or two percent of the population, which the rest of us ignore without risk.

Then he was never the fringe. I figured he had at least 10-15% support from the prevelence of the "birthers" but I didn't expect so many beyond that would be willing to overlook the obviously stupid & incorrect statements for the "feels".

He may be a racist asshole but he's not a complete moron.

Or at least his lawyers and financial advisors aren't morons.

0

In their laters speeches, both Clinton and Trump told some whoppers. In that vein I have a suggestion...

Rules for public broadcast of political content (debates/press releases/etc.)

  1. No live broadcast. In the same way that "almost live" broadcasts are delayed so that colourful metaphors can be bleeped out, live political broadcasts should be delayed until what is said can be checked against the facts.
  2. When broadcast, commentary on the facts should be presented in two ways. Running feet should present the actual facts as they relate to the current statement. Most people, I fear, would not bother to pay attention to the feet so in addition, a true/false meter should be displayed in one corner with green (truth) on one end and red (pants on fire lie) on the other end with a needle moving between one and the other.
  3. Concurrent with the broadcast, Politifact (or some other respected, non-partisan website) would publish the annotated speech with links to the source research material.

Yes, this is a lot of work, but that's what actual reporters used to do before they were reduced to just quoting the speaker or other "reporters" (Fox News) who were even too lazy to do that and just made shit up.

0

Yesterday on Hardball they fact-checked Trump's speech (actually Politifact fact-checked and Hardball reported the results) and pointed out where he was saying things that were untrue. It wasn't live, but it was there. That will either change people's minds or it won't. That truth-meter is more in your face than watching Hardball, but on Hardball they played clips of the speech and then talked about Politifact's truth-ruling, so it was easy to compare. I think lots of Trump supporters would watch that show and not be phased in the slightest. They either won't believe Politifact/Hardball or they don't care if Trump lies. I imagine it would be the same if they watched the speech a day later on MSNBC and had the truth-meter going green and red during the speech.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? I'm hardly going to trust Fox News' fact-checkers. MSNBC rehired Brian Williams as their political anchor, so it's kind of hard to hard to trust them to give me the facts. And as mentioned in this thread, Donald Trump might soon start the Trump News Network. If he lies in his own political speeches, how can we trust him to fact-check anyone else?

It is an interesting idea, but I think it's axiomatic that those people who most need to pay attention to a truth-meter are the same people who would completely ignore it.

In addition, there's the problem of "He who fact checks gets scooped".

Yes, this is a lot of work, but that's what actual reporters used to do before they were reduced to just quoting the speaker or other "reporters" (Fox News) who were even too lazy to do that and just made shit up.

And this too. Who the heck trusts reporters anymore? It's impossible to fact-check them because they all use "unnamed sources close to the Administration" instead of naming actual sources that can be asked "Did you actually say this?"

0

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

That's why a proper fact check site would link to sources. I know that a "source" on the internet can also be questionable but at least with a named source you can make a judgment. Is the source Fox News (which has quoted The Onion as their source) or is it the New York Times (not spotless but better)?

0

Speaking of Trump/news networks/fact checking, CNN just hired Corey Lewandowski, Trump's fired campaign manager, as a political commentator. He's in a good position to tell us all about the inner workings of the Trump campaign, except for this pesky fine print in his Trump contract.

All Trump campaign employees are required to sign non-disclosure agreements, which prohibits them from releasing any confidential or disparaging information about Trump. According to the Associated Press, the NDA says employees are restricted from publicly disclosing information "of a private, proprietary or confidential nature or that Mr. Trump insists remain private" or confidential and is binding during employment and "and at all times thereafter."

So he gets paid to analyze the Trump campaign, but can't disparage it. But he can compliment it all he wants on-air, which he does, even after he was fired...

"It's been an honor and privilege to be part of this," he told Bash the day he was fired.

and

"Corey seems to be really where I was; He worked for Trump, was loyal to Trump and will continue to be loyal to Trump, and he has maintained he wants to continue to help him. I don’t know if that’s a result of his NDA or probably more likely he just feels personally loyal to him," Tyler said, adding the hire was "a good move" for all involved.

Am I the only one who sees this as a conflict of interest for both Lewandowski and CNN? They're paying a Trump loyalist to be a political commentator for their network, yet he can't say anything "disparaging" about Trump in any analysis or he'll get sued. It's sort of like hiring a former tobacco industry employee who is not allowed to say anything disparaging about his former employer as a medical researcher researching the health affects of using tobacco.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/corey-lewandowski-to-join-cnn-224733

Edited by AssertNull

0

It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.

Joseph Heller (Catch-22)

Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.