I was watching Morning Joe this morning and that Ratner guy ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

someone I rarely agree with, said something very important (though I don't think he meant to) ... He was responding in a segment about the horrible favorabilities of the candidates, when he said ... "trump has had a really tough two weeks with his responses to Dallas and all ... HRC has, too, with all that has been said about her."

Get that? ... trump's bad two weeks was because of stuff HE did/said; while, HRC's bad weeks are based on what OTHER PEOPLE have said about her.

I wonder how many people caught/recognize that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Why do you disagree with the Rattner guy, bro?

I believe he was the architect of the GM bailout.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. He is, way, too ambivalent on scial justice issues for my taste ...

and too conservative on fiscal affairs.

His only saving grace with me is he is the only regular on the show that challenges "talk to much" Joe.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. My only exposure to him is on Morning Joe so the contrast with Joe makes him seem liberal.

I am glad he helped save GM though. They stepped up their game and make a nice car.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Oh ... I'm happy with the auto bail-out AND it's results. So, I credit him for that!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. He is a businessperson and a Democrat. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. True. And I have no problem with that.

[lapucelle]

7. Ratner is a money man.

He's the guy who structured the GM bailout/rescue for the Obama administration.
He's also a Clinton supporter.
He's also right.

Comey's unprofessional, unethical, and unprecedented statements last week were very damaging. Comey couldn't recommend charges, but he had no problem breaking with the proscribed procedure and slandering the Democratic candidate. And our side is letting him get away with it.

Well played, Director Comey, well-played.

[brush]

9. Comey did slime Clinton in his news conference

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)

He got his ass handed to him in the hearing though when Cummings made him admit that there were only 3 emails out of at least 30,000, those 3 without "classified" in the header, that had some material in the body of the email enclosed by (c).

3 out of 30,000 is 1/100th of 1 percent.

But that didn't get the headline or cable news play of Comey's smears during his news conference.

[still_one]

26. That is the problem, the media chooses what they want to highlight

[Hortensis]

10. Rattner's definitely economically oriented, a

probably billionaire with a degree in economics who was very close to being named treasury secretary by Obama when he got taken out by financial and personal scandals.

That's the only reason I noticed he was on Morning Joe, which has to a big comedown for him. I don't watch hardly at all, so didn't realize that he gets away with more, which is interesting. He and his wife are hugely wealthy and still big in political and financial inner circles, involved with and major donors to the Dem Party, so my guess is that's probably a big reason why he can say things--in a carefully restrained way--that would lose the others their gig.

No accident that he described the origin of the heat both were taking correctly, even if it required an attentive ear to pick up on it. Social justice orientation? Probably not. He has sat on some museum boards or whatever.

[lapucelle]

18. I heard Ratner do a funny take down of Mike Barnicle one morning.

They were talking about the craft that NASA managed to land on the asteroid, and what Barnicle found most amazing was that the asteroid was moving. Nasa landed a craft on a celestial body that was moving!

Ratner, an amateur pilot, just looked at him and pointed out, "Every time a pilot lands a plane, he's landing it on a celestial body that's moving. The earth revolves and rotates. It's not stationary. You do realize that, right?"

Brilliant take down.

[Hortensis]

19. Lol. Astonishing that Barnacle was so clueless,

no doubt to Rattner as well.

[riversedge]

23. was Barnicle's mouth left hanging open?? Good one for sure.

[politicaljunkie41910]

8. Ratner is the only impartial one on the show. Did you happen to catch the show yesterday?

Joe showed this survey result of millenials in which the Survey showed that 70% of those under 30 thought that Hillary was not honest and trustworthy. The same survey showed that 80% of those same folks thought Trump was not honest and trustworthy. Joe continued to harp on the fact that 70% thought that Hillary was not honest and trustworthy to include MSNBC had a banner displayed that showed "People under 30 think Hillary is not honest and trustworthy, while ignoring the same survey with worse numbers about Trump. Jeeze.

Today they showed a bunch of new polls most of which showed that Hillary's poll numbers had dropped and that was the conversation at the top of both of the first two hours. Last week when Hillary had some polls which showed her ahead of Trump by a lot and that some of Trumps numbers had dropped by a lot, they showed them and then they were gone. Didn't spend as much time talking about Trumps drop in the polls. With Nicole Wallace and Mark Halprin as regulars, I feel that this show is just another FOX production. Mike Barnicle is just a rubber stamper for anything Joe says.

[NoMoreRepugs]

12. why do you think such a large % of those under 30 think that way??

Is it because that group tends not to spend much time researching anything but rather reads the headline because they have 'more important' things to do? Or is it where they go via the internet to find their information? This has puzzled me for a long time...

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. It's probably, both, ...

both the internet and headlines are filled with negative HRC stories.

[whathehell]

24. They might have Mommy Issues?

Seemed like a strong possibility with the Bernie Bros...and I was a Bernie supporter.

[OnDoutside]

21. Yes, Ratner is the only one with the backbone to give it back to Scarborough, Barnicle is a coward

though an honourable mention to Donnie Deutch who stood up for Hillary as well.

[spooky3]

28. It reminds me of the Imus show, with all the

Fawning sycophants.

[Mc Mike]

11. Good analysis. recced. nt.

[world wide wally]

14. I have a game I play with people who say they don't trust Hillary.

I simply ask them what she did to make you not trust her. (Fox and RW talking points are not accepted as a legitimate answer). Nobody has given me a concrete reason yet. It's kind of like when I ask them to name one good thing Republicans ever did for the American people.... Crickets

[ehrnst]

15. Yep. Same here.

When you present facts that rebut claims, there is often silence or "I just don't trust her."

I got the same sort of response when people I would question people about why they didn't trust Obama to know what he was doing, and that he was just laughing at white people when they weren't in the room, or that he was a racist, or a socialist, or a secret Muslim.

[SheilaT]

16. Interesting point.

It is possible to make the case that Donald is his own worst enemy, and Hillary simply has enemies, but in the end one of them will win the election. Probably Hillary, but come January 20, 2017, she will still have enemies. And he will still be his own worst enemy.

To me the genuinely scary thing about Trump is the extent to which he's ignorant about little things like the Constitution. Or the fact that Senators don't run for election every two years. Or that he won't be able to fire Supreme Court Justices. Were he to win and actually attempt to be President (meaning he doesn't resign quickly) this country will be in a Constitutional Crisis that will make Watergate and the resignation of Richard Nixon look like nothing.

Not that I think he'll win. If for no other reason than the more he talks, the more he alienates potential voters. On Hillary's side all she really needs to do is demonstrate that most of what others have said are either false or meaningless to her being President. Which means that over time she's likely to draw more voters to her.

[OnDoutside]

20. Trump appears to have a very shallow knowledge of issues/policy, so I suspect that his handlers will

be spending most of August in schooling him in defensive strategies for the Debates. Hillary could wipe the floor with her policy knowledge, but will have a difficult balancing act in not appearing the class swot, while cornering the rat.

[SheilaT]

25. While you are probably no doubt right

that his handlers may well be doing that, it's up for debate (little joke there) if he'll bother to pay any attention to him.

It infuriates and depresses me to think how he'll behave, the truly offensive things he'll be saying, things he can only say because he's running against a (oh the horror!) woman. And while Hillary is a lightening rod for all sorts of mean-spirited stuff, had Elizabeth Warren chosen to run and were the nominee, he'd say equally awful things about her, again just a woman, and could throw in his crap about her Native American ancestors. Of course, Trump being an equal-opportunity offensive asshole, I'm sure he'll find insulting things to say about Hillary's ancestor, or religion, or style sense.

And because Hillary will have actual facts at her command, we may well wind up watching a series of parallel debates, with Donald ranting about whatever comes to his little tiny mind, and Hillary for the most part answering the questions. Have for some time now, meaning a couple of election cycles, thought that the debates should be without any audience. I find the audience reactions to be at best annoying, and don't lend anything meaningful. I'm pretty sure the Kennedy-Nixon debates were in a studio with no audience. We should go back to that original model.

Oh, and I suppose that Trump doesn't have anyone around who can actually handle him, who can persuade him to change any of his behavior, statements, or actions.

Another sad and depressing thing about Trump being the nominee is that it completely undoes any credibility the Republican party might have had overseas, not to mention to many decent people who identify with that party.

[ismnotwasm]

17. K&R

[riversedge]

22. It is a distinction that is very obvious but never have I heard it articulated.

[spooky3]

27. It's not just two weeks. It's practically the entire campaign,

And beyond.