June 5, 2016

The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump. He may not survive it.

If this evolution in coverage takes hold, we can trace it to the combined effect of a few events and developments happening in a short amount of time. The first was Trump's press conference on Tuesday, the ostensible purpose of which was to answer questions about a fundraiser he held in January to raise money for veterans' groups. In the course of the press conference, Trump was at his petulant, abusive worst, attacking reporters in general and those in the room. "The political press is among the most dishonest people that I've ever met," he said, saying to one journalist who had asked a perfectly reasonable question, "You're a sleaze." These kinds of criticisms are not new – anyone who has reported a Trump rally can tell you how Trump always tosses some insults at the press, at which point his supporters turn around and hurl their own abuse at those covering the event – but Trump seemed particularly angry and unsettled.

To see how the press looked at that revealing event, it's critical to understand what led to it. It happened because the Post's David Fahrenthold and some other reporters did what journalists are supposed to do. They raised questions about Trump's fundraiser, and when they didn't get adequate answers, they investigated, gathered facts, and asked more questions.

It was excellent work – time-consuming, difficult, and ultimately paying dividends in public understanding. And Trump's attack on them for doing their jobs the way those jobs are supposed to be done couldn't have been better designed to get every other journalist to want to do the same. They're no different than anyone else: When you make a direct attack on their professionalism, they're likely to react by reaching back to their profession's core values to demonstrate that they can live up to them. Trump may have wanted to intimidate them, but it's likely to have the opposite effect.

The same day as the press conference, a trove of documents from Trump University was released as part of a class-action lawsuit accusing Trump of fraud. The documents revealed allegations as to just what a scam that enterprise was: high-pressure sales tactics, nothing resembling knowledge being imparted to the "students," people in financial trouble preyed upon and told to max out their credit cards to pay for more seminars and courses. Some of Trump's other schemes may have been comical, but as far as we know nobody was victimized too terribly by buying a Trump Steak or a bottle of Trump Vodka. Trump University is something entirely different, and it's not over yet; questions are now being raised about an investigation the Texas Attorney General's office undertook of Trump University, which concluded that it was cheating Texans out of large sums of money; the investigation was dropped by then-AG Greg Abbott, who later got $35,000 in contributions from Trump and is now the state's governor.

Plenty of presidential candidates have had shady doings in their pasts, but can you think of anything that compares to Trump University? A party's nominee allegedly running a con not just on unsuspecting victims, but on victims specifically chosen for their vulnerability and desperation? It's no wonder that you can't find any Republicans who'll defend it, in a time when ordinarily you can get a partisan hack to justify almost anything their party's leader is doing or has done.


http://www.adn.com/voices/commentary/2016/06/04/the-media-have-reached-a-turning-point-in-covering-donald-trump-he-may-not-survive-it/

June 5, 2016

Cross him and your ethnicity is grounds for suspicion.

Mexicans, Muslims, Cubans, Blacks: Donald Trump Is a Serial Exploiter of Prejudice
Cross him and your ethnicity is grounds for suspicion.

____

From this interview and other statements during the campaign, we have a clear portrait of Trump’s thinking about minorities. It extends beyond Latinos to blacks, Muslims, and other groups. Trump isn’t an incorrigible bigot. He’s an incorrigible user of bigotry. This is no longer deniable. Republican leaders who support Trump—Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Speaker Paul Ryan—should explain why they accept this conduct in their presidential nominee.

____

Trump has now done this six times. He said that Jeb Bush “has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife,” because she’s “from Mexico.” He warned Iowans not to vote for Sen. Ted Cruz because “not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba.” Two weeks later, Trump made an almost identical statement about people of Cuban descent. He said Curiel was conspiring against him because “I’m very, very strong on the border” and Curiel is “Spanish.” A week ago, Trump said Curiel was biased and “Mexican.” Trump’s spokeswoman explained how the judge’s ethnicity and his alleged bias were supposedly connected.

Trump’s apologists in the conservative media have tried to dress up his beef with the judge as a complaint about illegal immigrants or membership in a political organization. But in his interview with the Journal, Trump tossed that cloak aside. If you’re “of Mexican heritage,” says Trump, you have “an inherent conflict of interest” in judging him. It doesn’t matter which organizations you join or whom you give scholarships to. Your ethnicity is prima facie grounds for suspicion.

Trump will try to clean up this incident, as he has after previous slurs, by saying he employs Hispanics, has Muslim friends, sells apartments to Asians, or has “a great relationship with the blacks.” But what makes him unfit for the presidency isn’t that he hates everyone of a particular race, ethnicity, or religion. It’s that he has no compunction about using race, ethnicity, or religion for advantage. If you rule his way, he’ll be pals and share a taco bowl. If you don’t, he’ll go after your heritage.

If you’re not Muslim or Latino, don’t delude yourself that Trump wouldn’t do the same to you. He’s an equal-opportunity demagogue. He’ll find something he can use. He’ll tell people you’re a Seventh-day Adventist. He’ll make fun of your disability. Or he’ll go after your race. That’s what happened to Barack Obama. When Trump turned on Obama, the president’s color was just another angle of opportunity. Kwanzaa; the riots in Ferguson, Missouri; the “thugs” in Baltimore—everything racial became a weapon against “our great African American President” and his lack of “control” over “the African American community.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/donald_trump_is_a_serial_exploiter_of_prejudice.html

June 5, 2016

Pushing racial boundaries, Trump draws rebuke from a fretful GOP

Source: Washington post

When challenged to explain why he believed the judge was biased, Trump said, among other things, “He’s a Mexican.”

Curiel is an American, born in 1953 in Indiana to parents who were Mexican immigrants. The judge has not publicly expressed an opinion about Trump’s proposed wall.

Politicians and others across the ideological spectrum have rebuked Trump in the past for “dog whistle” politics, or worse. In this case, the condemnations have been swift and cutting, as Republican leaders scramble to protect their party against charges that their presumptive presidential nominee is engaging in a racist attack against a sitting judge.

I don’t know what Trump’s reasoning was, and I don’t care,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been supportive of Trump, said in an email. “His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable.”

Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas, emailed: “There is a long history of race-based unhappiness with court decisions (e.g. George Wallace’s tirades against desegregation orders). But Trump’s rhetoric amounts to a uniquely personal attack on a federal judge that signals a decidedly ‘un-presidential’ disrespect for the legal process. This cannot help his candidacy.”

John Weaver, who served as chief strategist to the unsuccessful presidential campaign of Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), said in an email, “Trump’s unwarranted and unhinged attacks on a fine American public servant are echoes from this nation’s demagogic past. .?.?. There is no stopping him from being our nominee, sadly, but this type of racially charged rhetoric will ensure he is adrift and alone before he is defeated in November.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pushing-racial-boundaries-trump-draws-rebuke-from-a-fretful-gop/2016/06/04/fbd298c8-2a6d-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html

June 4, 2016

Ryan: Trump’s racially charged rhetoric came ‘out of left field’

Note, when Ryan referenced the racially charged comments from “the other day,” it’s unclear exactly which day he meant. Trump has gone after Judge Curiel several times, and it’s hard to say with certainty which of the attacks Ryan saw as coming from “out of left field.”

But therein lies the point: the House Speaker is apparently surprised by Trump’s racially charged comments, and it’s hard to imagine why.

Trump started criticizing the judge – based explicitly on Curiel’s ethnicity – back in February. The Republican candidate escalated his offensive last week, and then again yesterday.

If Ryan believes the ugly attacks were “out of left field,” perhaps the Speaker hasn’t been paying close enough attention to the man he intends to help elect president.

More broadly, the idea that Ryan would be at all surprised about Trump race-based messaging is just bizarre. Trump’s most notable contribution to the political discourse ahead of his presidential campaign was cheerleading a racist conspiracy theory for several years. The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin noted earlier that the Republican Party is responding to eight years of the nation’s first African-American president by nominating a man who “openly practices racial politics.”

Ryan knows this. He endorsed him anyway.

For all the talk about Trump’s unpredictability, his offensive approach to racial politics is probably the single most predicable thing about the guy. “Out of left field”? We should be so lucky.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ryan-trumps-racially-charged-rhetoric-came-out-left-field

June 4, 2016

Fix Jake Tapper asked Donald Trump if his judge attack was racist — then followed up 23 times

Jake Tapper asked Donald Trump if his judge attack was racist — then followed up 23 times all, Tapper made an astounding 23 follow-up attempts. This moment right here — with this look on Tapper's face — perfectly encapsulates the exchange.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484


Tapper's relentlessness ultimately paid off. He finally got a straight answer out of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

TAPPER: If you are saying he cannot do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?

TRUMP: No, I don't think so at all.

Tapper presumably had other subjects he would have liked to get to. Trump likely figured as much and assumed he could stall long enough for his interviewer to move on. That's usually how it goes.

But Tapper refused to drop the subject until Trump offered a yes-or-no answer. It was clearly an exhausting effort. But it showed that even Donald J. Trump can be worn down by a journalist who never gives up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/03/jake-tapper-asked-donald-trump-if-his-judge-attack-was-racist-then-followed-up-23-times/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

June 4, 2016

Clinton opens up double-digit lead over Trump nationwide - Reuters/Ipsos poll

Source: Reuters

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.

Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3.

Trump had briefly tied Clinton in support among likely U.S. voters in mid-May, raising expectations for a tight race between the two likely contenders in November's presidential election.

Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-election-clinton-trump-poll-idINKCN0YQ042

June 3, 2016

Museum Visitor Caught on Video Breaking Rare Clock 'This is why we beg visitors not to touch'

Museum Visitor Caught on Video Breaking Rare Clock
'This is why we beg visitors not to touch'

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Unless that clock has been smashed into pieces by a museum-goer with self-control issues. In that case, it's totally useless. NBC Philadelphia reports a visitor to the National Watch & Clock Museum in Pennsylvania was caught on video Tuesday poking and pulling at a rare wooden sculpture clock. Inverse quotes astounded video viewers, who noted on Reddit that the man "practically stress tested that thing" and "would NOT. STOP. TOUCHING IT.” The museum's director, Noel Poirier, thinks the man was trying to get the clock to work. All he succeeded in doing was yanking it off the wall.

The clock, which Popular Mechanics reports had been hanging in the museum for two decades and has won a national award, hit the ground and broke into pieces. The man futilely tried to re-hang the clock while his female companion gathered the pieces. They eventually had to inform museum staff of what they'd done. The museum hopes to repair the clock over the next few months, and Poirier calls it a "learning opportunity." "There are people who touch things in museums regardless of what you do," he tells NBC. "Most times, it's adults. People think it's children, but it's really not." While the museum isn't pressing charges, the man will have to endure some light internet humiliation. "This is why we beg visitors not to touch museum object. #museumfail #museums #visitorfail," the museum posted on Instagram. (This kid trashed a $15,000 Lego sculpture on the exhibit's first day.)
http://www.newser.com/story/226128/museum-visitor-caught-on-video-breaking-rare-clock.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_home

Kid destroys $15,000 LEGO sculpture an hour after new exhibit opens





Children might be small in stature, but let's be honest, they can be rather destructive when left to their own devices.

Such is the case with a young Chinese boy, who single-handedly pushed over a giant fox figurine of Nick from Zootopia on Sunday at the LEGO Expo in Ningbo, China.

It so happened that it was the first day of the exhibition and the display had been open to the public for no more than an hour when the incident occurred.

According to Zhao, the artist who spent three days and nights painstakingly piecing together the figurine, the parents were very apologetic over the mishap.

The LEGO figurine is said to cost more than 100,000 yuan ($15,170).

June 3, 2016

Top 10 Reasons To Doubt Trump Is Even A Billionaire

The following is a list of things I've learned about Trump over recent months that make it clear he is worth dramatically less than he claims and think it is a real possibility that he has a net worth of less than $1 billion. None of the ten is definitive or proves he is worth a certain amount now or even that he could not be worth the $10 billion he claims. But taken together they show a chronic exaggeration of his wealth, repeated instances of financial reports that include almost comical efforts to inflate the numbers (like reporting gross revenues as income) and various points where his net worth was estimated with some precision and make it hard to credit how he could now be worth so much today.

So with that, here's the top 10.


4. Trump refuses to release his income tax returns and is knowingly incurring substantial political damage for failing to do so. He would only do so if they contained information he very, very much does not want to see made public.

5. Trump repeatedly received a New York State tax credit that is restricted to married couples making no more than $500,000 a year in federal adjusted gross income. Trump himself and later New York City said Trump had received the credit in error. But the the City of New York very conspicuously did not say that it was because Trump made more than that much money a year. Every year, the City cross references recipients with state records which show the income of recipients.

7. Trump has gotten a good deal of ridicule for efforts like Trump Steaks, Trump Water, Trump University and other similar ventures. But it is difficult to believe someone worth $10 billion would play around with such penny ante gambits. Perhaps it's just ego and the desire to maximize the return on his 'brand'. But the litany of these failed ventures, the possible return on which would be a few million dollars at best, suggests someone with far, far fewer assets and wealth than Trump claims.

8. During the presidential campaign, despite Trump's claim to be self-funding his effort, Trump has made a number of moves that suggest expenditures even in the tens of millions of dollars represent a real strain on his finances. Trump's self funding was almost entirely loans to his campaign. He could make those into simple contributions with the stroke of a pen. And yet he still hasn't ruled out asking Republican mega-donors to reimburse him for the cost of his self-funded primary campaign. $10 billion is 10,000 million dollars. Even if much of his wealth isn't liquid, 40 million dollars should be a minor expense for someone with that scale of wealth.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/top-ten-reasons-to-doubt-trump-is-even-a-billionaire

June 3, 2016

Trump continues to inflict lasting, perhaps irreparable, damage to the party’s image among Hispanics

THE BIG IDEA: Donald Trump is doing to the national GOP brand in 2016 what Proposition 187 did to California Republicans in 1994. He continues to inflict lasting, perhaps irreparable, damage to the party’s image among Hispanics. It is not hyperbole to say that Trumpism could relegate the party of Abraham Lincoln to long-term minority status.

Just how anathema is Trump to Latinos? The head of Hispanic media relations for the Republican National Committee, Ruth Guerra, has resigned her post after two years and will take a less prestigious job at a super PAC, which focuses on down-ballot races and thus will not require her to defend him.

Sources said Guerra, who grew up in Texas and is of Mexican descent, grew increasingly exhausted with having to defend The Donald on TV and in public appearances, especially as he continues to attack Hispanics. "I'm so proud of her,” a Hispanic Republican told our Ed O’Keefe last night. "I don't know how she held on for this long."

“It is relatively rare for party staff members to leave the national committee in the midst of a presidential campaign unless they are going to work directly for the nominee,” noted the New York Times, which first reported the story. “Ms. Guerra declined to discuss her feelings about Mr. Trump.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/02/daily-202-hispanic-rnc-staffer-s-resignation-spotlights-trump-s-toxicity-and-the-party-s-failed-outreach/574f932d981b92a22dd1182b/

June 3, 2016

Bank of America fires employee for this facebook post

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/racist-facebook-post-claims-another-victim-bank-of/nrYwL/



The very Facebook that Lindgren loathed reacted in kind, blasting her for her comments and flooding Bank of America with calls, emails and social media posts.

“Christine McMullen Lindgren wrote a horrifically racist, anti-Black comment on Facebook and she proudly listed you, Bank of America, as her employer,” one person posted on Facebook. “Does she represent the racist values you strive for or the ones you’ve promised to abandon?”


“Does Christine McMullen Lindgren really work for you? If she is one of your employees, are you going to take action against her?” someone else wrote. “Failure to do so sends a very loud message to your current African-American customers. I’m sure possible new customers will have a second thought before opening an account with Bank of America if this is not addressed properly.”

“I hope this company’s values do not align with Christine’s,” wrote another woman, offering to send the bank screenshots. “Let this be a lesson to those who choose to be nasty on the Internet and believe their actions have no repercussion. Please, let me and others who have reported her know that this situation will be taken care of. Thank you.”

By 1 p.m. Thursday, Bank of America had let them know.

Andy Aldridge, a senior vice president and communications manager for the bank, confirmed that Lindgren had worked at the bank and that the comments were “reprehensible and unacceptable.”