Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

I assume that Republicans all across the country are much more concerned that voters who are programmed to vote GOP might stay home and costs them races up and down the ticket than they are with Trump winning.

 

Why couldn't they shoot him in the knee

 

I don't get it. He's a winner who never did anything wrong.

 

Maybe Bashar al Assad called?

 

I ran it through Google Translate so Manafort could understand it.

"Этим утром Пол Манафорт предложил, и я принял, о своем уходе из кампании. Я очень благодарен за большую работу, помогая получить нас, где мы находимся сегодня, и, в частности, его работа ведет нас через процесс делегирования и конвенции. Павла это настоящий профессионал, и я желаю ему всяческих успехов ".

- Дональд Дж Трамп

 

So much for "If you like your doctor.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

When Obamacare was developed, one goal was to allow middle-class Americans to use the new marketplaces to buy the same kind of health insurance they had at their jobs. People could retire early, or quit a corporate job and become a freelancer, and still have the great care and financial protection that come with high-end plans.

But six years into the health law, the reality is that a typical Obamacare plan looks more like Medicaid, only with a high deductible. The typical marketplace plan covers a small number of low-cost doctors and hospitals, and offers fewer frills than employer plans.

 

I don't get it. He said this week that he was too nasty during the primary campaign and regrets a lot of the insults, etc. But now he's fired Manafort and hired a cast of professional flame throwers. I don't get it.

Meanwhile, he's only 4 points behind with some momentum.

 

It's not crazy talk, it's just economically illiterate. Arthur Laffer wrote some good stuff on this years ago ...

 

Unlike Trump himself, these flame throwers are professional flame throwers. Their aim is going to be a lot better.

 

Good luck with that. Hillary ought to be a crispy critter after 25 years of napalm attacks.

Trump's only hope is cowering in an embassy in London.

 

That's all well and good but to suggest trade policy should be debated within election politics in terms of its "impact on efficiency" is naive. In political debate, as opposed to debate among academics and economists, people, voters, want to know about a policy's net effect on their lives. That means jobs. The discussion necessarily broadens from trade to overall domestic economic policy.

 

It does seem, however, that whenever Hillary's various scandals bubbles up into a news cycle, her numbers take a hit. People are fickle and easily manipulated. It's like "Groundhog's Day." They get worked up about her scandals, then they relax about them. Then they get worked up about her scandals again, and then they relax about them again. And on and on.