The job of being an executive consists of five parts... **(Live from the Republicans' Self-Made Trump Hell)** ...They are: 1. Pushing the paper that triggers thing to happen when they are actually supposed to and need to happen. 2. Setting up the incentives *ex ante* and assigning the rewards *ex...
Extremist radio priest Rev. Charles Coughlin and his contemporary counterpart Donald Trump If it wasn't clear before Wednesday night's debate, it should be obvious now that Donald Trump is no longer running for president. He is using his campaign to become the leader of what he calls "our movement" -- a white supremacist, nativist, and nationalist crusade -- to boost his ego, settle scores (including with many Republicans), and make it impossible for Hillary Clinton to govern. He intends to become America's first celebrity demagogue. For at least the past month, Trump had realized that he is going to lose the race for president on November 8. Indeed, every day, it looks more and more likely that Clinton will beat him by landslide margins in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. If he were still running for president, and trying to win 270 Electoral College votes, Trump would be appealing to swing voters in battleground states. But during his performances in all three debates -- as well as in his speeches at Trump rallies since the GOP convention -- he has appealed entirely to his base of fervent supporters. In the third debate, he doubled down on his most extremist positions -- on abortion and immigration, in particular. By inviting President Obama's Kenyan-born half-brother to attend the event, he was signaling his supporters that he still believes in the racist "birther" myth that Obama was not born in the United States and is not a legitimate president. As his poll numbers have plummeted, Trump has become increasingly inflammatory. After his campaign advisers realized that they could not control him and that he could not control himself -- that he was prone to impulsive and self-destructive behavior -- they tried to turn his worst character traits into an asset by claiming that they were encouraging "Trump to be Trump." It was all on display on the podium at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. Trump's performance offered no surprises. What Americans saw was the same racist, sexist, thin-skinned, nativist bully -- filled with paranoid conspiracy theories, unable to make a coherent argument, who went ballistic when Clinton criticized him -- that we've watched for more than a year on the campaign trail. For the past few months, Trump has been using his campaign to set the stage for a new white supremacist right-wing media empire with Breitbart News head Stephen Bannon (his campaign chair) and adviser Roger Ailes (the former Fox News head fired for flagrant sexual assault and harassment). Their goal is to create a media vehicle that will serve as the voice of the right-wing movement Trump intends to lead and to compete with, and outfox, Fox News. What we witnessed Wednesday night was not a presidential debate but a dress rehearsal for the battle between Trump's right-wing movement and the Clinton administration that will begin on November 9 when Trump refuses to acknowledge Clinton's victory but continues to claim -- as he said at the debate -- that the election was "rigged" against him. Trump's unprecedented refusal to say that he'd accept the results of the election was the clearest indication that his campaign will morph into an anti-Clinton crusade even before she takes the oath of office in January. Throughout his campaign, Trump's comments have "normalized" many forms of extremist bigotry, including anti-Semitism, hostility to immigrants and Muslims, attacks on Mexicans and African Americans, insults toward women, slanders against veterans like Senator John McCain, and mocking people with disabilities. He has poisoned the culture by encouraging hate and division. He has encourage his fervent follows to engage in violence and to threaten and intimidate voters on election day. Trump did not invent this ugly aspect of American society but he has given voice to, galvanized, emboldened and mobilized it. When the election is over, he will seek to reconstruct the remnants of his campaign, which he has increasingly referred to as "our movement," into a political force that will make the Tea Party and Fox News look tame, boosted by the media savvy of Ailes and Bannon and financial support from right-wing billionaires like hedge fund operator Robert Mercer. Whether they can motivate and mobilize Trump's hard core supporters into an effective political movement is an open question. But surely they will utilize their new media empire to provide Trump with a public stage on which to act out his ego-driven fantasies. He will seek to settle scores with his many enemies, including Republicans who refused to support him, withdrew their support for him, or (like Paul Ryan) failed to fall on their swords for him. But his biggest target will be Hillary Clinton, whose administration's initiatives he will try to thwart at every turn. He will be a thorn and a tormentor, hoping to put her on the defensive and to rally Clinton haters to pressure Congress to kill her legislative priorities, including raising the minimum wage, expanding Obamacare, and jump-starting jobs with a public infrastructure program, and impeding her efforts to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. The closest precedent to what Trump hopes to become is Charles Coughlin, the Michigan-based Roman Catholic "radio priest" who was the one of first political leaders to use radio to reach a nationwide mass audience. During the Great Depression, Coughlin exploited people's fears and anxieties to advance an anti-Semitic, nativist, isolationist right-wing agenda and his fervent opposition to President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. He used his radio program to promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and to support Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. At the peak of his influence, 30 million listeners tuned in to his weekly broadcasts. Coughlin was a dangerous force in America for almost a decade. In 1934 he started a political organization called the National Union for Social Justice and a newspaper called Social Justice to mobilize his followers in elections. But the NUSJ was poorly-organized on the local level and he was unable to translate his media appeal into an effective grassroots organization. By 1939 he was forced off the air. Like Coughlin, Trump has brilliantly used the mainstream media to gain attention and stoke the fears and anxieties of millions of Americans. His greatest talent is that of a self-promoting publicist, marketing his celebrity TV shows, his hotels and apartments, his beauty pageants, his steaks and clothing lines, and, of course, himself. His campaign rallies have been remarkable spectacles filled with zealous true believers. Surely, after the election, some of Trump's most fervent admirers - many of them already part of white supremacist hate groups, immigrant-bashing militias, anti-abortion zealots, and gun rights fanatics - will join forces with Trump to stoke hatred and dissension on-line and at rowdy rallies. But, also like Coughlin, Trump has shown no talent to building a grassroots political operation. Under his three different campaign managers -- Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort, and Kellyanne Conway -- Trump showed no inclination or capacity for developing the ground operation -- voter registration efforts, local precinct organizations, and a get-out-the-vote apparatus -- that is essential to any successful political campaign. So perhaps, like Father Coughlin, Trump's next incarnation will be more that of a controversial right-wing carnival barker than a real movement leader that can mobilize his followers to protest, disrupt and vote. Of course, when the election is over, Trump will have other matters to worry about. He will have to spend time in court, before Judge Gonzalo Curiel, defending his phony Trump University con operation. He may have to defend him against lawsuits brought by women whom he sexually assaulted. He will have to pay attention to his troubled real estate empire, golf courses, and casinos that are deeply in debt, and perhaps even face boycotts of his businesses by consumers and former corporate partners. Surely he will hand over many of those tasks to his lawyers and his children, so he can devote time to his next career as the leader of a right-wing movement. Whether Trump can translate his megalomaniac fantasy into political reality remains to be seen. But as America hits the home stretch of this bizarre election season, it is clear that after the votes have been counted, we won't have seen the last of Donald Trump. Peter Dreier is professor of politics and chair of the Urban & Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College. His most recent book is The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
John Trumbull's painting, Declaration of Independence, depicting the five-man drafting committee of the Declaration of Independence, including Jefferson and Adams By Ralph J Benko Last August, Washington Post Bigfoot Columnist David Ignatius published a deeply insightful column on how people either develop, or hold onto, their beliefs: "Basically, the studies show that attempts to refute false information often backfire and lead people to hold on to their misperceptions even more strongly. "This literature about misperception was lucidly summarized by Christopher Graves, the global chairman of Ogilvy Public Relations, in a February 2015 article in the Harvard Business Review, months before Trump surfaced as a candidate. Graves is now writing a book about his research at the Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio Center in Italy. "Graves's article examined the puzzle of why nearly one-third of U.S. parents believe that childhood vaccines cause autism, despite overwhelming medical evidence that there's no such link. In such cases, he noted, "arguing the facts doesn't help -- in fact, it makes the situation worse." The reason is that people tend to accept arguments that confirm their views and discount facts that challenge what they believe. ... 'Trying to correct misperceptions can actually reinforce them, according to a 2006 paper by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, also cited by Graves. They documented what they called a "backfire effect" by showing the persistence of the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2005 and 2006, after the United States had publicly admitted that they didn't exist. "The results show that direct factual contradictions can actually strengthen ideologically grounded factual belief," they wrote. "'Bottom line: Vilifying Trump voters ... won't convince them they're wrong. Probably it will have the opposite effect." This insight applies equally to the vilification of Hillary Clinton and her voters. An abundance of research shows that vilification is not just bad manners. It is also bad politics. Back in its heyday MoveOn.org was the gold standard of Righteous Indignation, taking a courageous stand to "censure Clinton and move on." Then, after Clinton survived impeachment, MoveOn moved on to oppose the war on Iraq. MoveOn stuck to the issues, always keeping it classy. Righteous Indignation is very different from, and far more powerful than, vilification. Eventually MoveOn prevailed. There is abundant vitriol on both sides. Clinton recently called half of Trump's supporters a "basket of deplorables" - for which she later expressed half-hearted regret. Team Trump chronically calls Clinton "crooked." This is simply bad politics. Ignatius: "People are more likely to accept information if it's presented unemotionally, in graphs...." The research Ignatius reports is consistent with the experience at the website AllSides.com, devoted to providing "just the facts, ma'am" and all sides of every issue. This insight goes to the core of LivingRoomConversations.org which is founded on respectful mutual listening. If you could wish to change someone's mind one must start by listening to those with whom you disagree. (Trigger Warning: doing so might also change yours.) Underneath all the name calling and so forth the 2016 presidential election is being fought out on real issues, vividly (and relatively clearly) presented on one primary and one secondary issue. As I wrote in Forbes.com recently, "voters care about prosperity, peace, and who seems better able to protect their interests and their values. "Above all, now, the voters care about the American Dream, composed of two elements: Prosperity and Economic Justice. "Both are legitimate and essential." The candidates' respective positions are, outside the melodrama, well reported in the news and the voters are choosing accordingly. Nevertheless, the melodrama makes the headlines and according to FiveThirtyEight "Clinton and Trump are both more strongly disliked than any nominee at this point in the past 10 presidential cycles." I am the only person I know who publicly proclaims that both Clinton and Trump are, despite their flaws, admirable. This, of course, annoys all my friends both left and right. With due apologies for annoying my friends ... I stand by my position. The overwrought emotion that condemns both Clinton and Trump to Hell (by their various opposing factions) is nothing new. It has been part of the American Political Carnival going back to very early days. Partisans of two of our (now) most revered statesmen, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did just this. Mental Floss reminds us: "Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a 'hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.' In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson 'a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.' As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward." Badmouthing a political adversary is the rule, not the exception, in politics. It has never caused the system to break down. It won't cause a breakdown now. It's just politics. But bottom line: badmouthing's just bad politics. Not because it is rude (which it is, but that's social not political). It is bad because "Vilifying (your adversary's) voters ... won't convince them they're wrong. Probably it will have the opposite effect." Memo to those who yearn to defeat Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. (Yes, you.) Badmouthing your opponent only makes him, or her, more likely to win. Keeping it classy is good policy and good politics. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Once again I got local in luxurious style, this time in Miami over Columbus Day Weekend. Here's the four-part plan. 15th floor, W Downtown Miami THE W: SHEER FABULOSITY I’m partial to downtown Miami because it’s the best of both worlds: modish urban flair and a futuristic skyline, in close proximity to [...]
Want some career advice? It's never impossible to get the attention of successful people. You just need to know how to pique their interest.
Love Halloween? We have the list of must-see cities that feature ghoulish parties and incredible costume contests that you have to visit this season.
Democrats would win enough seats to take back the House if the election were held today, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told her caucus earlier today. Pelosi's (D-Calif.) bullish prediction — Democrats would need to win at least 30 seats to grab the speaker's gavel again — comes after the Friday release of a tape capturing Donald Trump making extremely vulgar comments and bragging about groping women. The tape, while a boon for Democrats looking to boost their down-ballot chances, has unleashed a near civil war within the GOP. Pelosi stressed that the key to a Democratic wave — or at least taking a significant hunk out of Republicans' historic House majority — depends on members keeping current on their campaign committee dues and fundraising in the waning weeks of the election, according to three sources on the call. New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Luján, chairman of House Democrats' campaign arm, also touted a new poll showing Democrats with a 12-point lead over Republicans still backing Trump, as well as those who have split with him.The poll, commissioned by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, was released Tuesday. Luján also highlighted an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out Monday showing Democrats with a 7-point advantage over Republicans on a generic congressional ballot — numbers they haven't seen since the 2013 government shutdown, he told members on the call, which was first reported by CNN. The same poll, taken after the tape was released but before Sunday’s presidential debate, showed Hillary Clinton leading Trump by 11 points among likely voters. It was a “very upbeat call" according to a Democratic aide.But Republicans are already pushing back on Pelosi's predictions. "Nancy Pelosi’s record of predicting House races is about as reliable as a carnival palm reader," Katie Martin, spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement.
On Oct 6, we issued an updated report on the leisure travel and cruise company, Carnival Corporation (CCL).
When Senator Hillary Clinton was a presidential candidate in 2008, her biggest problem was not her husband's dalliances, or her opponent (then senator) Barack Obama for that matter, it was her inability to connect to the voters and a failure to appear authentic and empathetic to the plight of an average working class that saw her as a Washington insider who appeared as if she deserved the office rather than trying to earn the position on her own merits (despite her eight years in the White House as the first lady or her two terms senatorial stint in New York). Mr. Obama on the other hand appeared genuine, impassioned, personable, and with an oratory skill that eclipsed Hillary's credentials--style over substance as usual in politics: he offered a different view of America that voters were hungering for after eight years of George W. Bush's dismal record, leaving a country that found itself in shambles after war cost overruns and an economy teetering on the brink of collapse ala 'The Great Depression'. So why does Ms. Clinton have this perceived or earned persona in the court of public opinion as being non-trustworthy and a bit shifty? Some of it can be attributed to decades of vicious campaigning against her by political foes and against her husband when they unsuccessfully tried to impeach him and in the process spent nearly 80 million dollars of tax payer's money with nothing concrete to show for it except that he lied about having an affair under oath--a president who was one of the most successful economically in terms of job creation (22 million) and economic prosperity. Mr. Clinton left us a balanced budget and a surplus to boot during his eight years in the oval office. This disdain of her husband wasn't just limited to him. Her sworn enemies, a group of misogynistic conservatives, talk show hosts and some Washington political PAC, dislike her ideologically--for all that she represents (despite her mostly centrist right positions when she was in the senate), perhaps because of a more liberal political past or simply because she is a woman with opinions which threatens the status quo, i.e. the old boys club in Washington. But some of this earned reputation has something to do with the way Ms. Clinton reacts after verbal missteps, trying to overcompensate instead of simply recanting, or trying unsuccessfully to invoke a classic evasive verbal maneuver (a la her lawyer's training), only to regret it later and come clean once irrevocable damage has been done, which further bolsters the undeserved 'untrustworthy' persona. For many on the fence it only adds to her besmirched reputation because it gets repeated in the press. After defending a barrage of allegations for decades--whether Whitewater, Healthgate, Clintongate, Bengazi, some damning report from the personal email server fiasco (a practice that never got her predecessor in trouble), or the failed presidential run in 2008--one would think that by now she would have honed her political demarche and stagecraft into a fine art. But she has yet to find an adequate balance between authenticity and artifice which leans on the side of believability, and that failing of style despite mountains of substance (her manifold experience advocating for the less fortunate, her work as first Lady of Arkansas and the United States, and her work as the two terms Senator from New York passing some key bipartisan bills) has held sway. Perhaps her biggest political mistake was trying to pass an ambitious health bill without taking the temperature of the political climate at the time; the bill was doomed even before the boiler plate was drafted not because it was poorly hatched: the Republicans and their health industry lobbyists were having none of it, and they made sure that this would be the albatross around her neck for years to come. But that wasn't the end, her detractors found more fodder from her years at state department - a matter that would have been put to rest had she handled it better. But surprisingly nothing was dug from the time when she was the senator from New York? Hmmm! Having had her eye on the White House for some time, she was the 'chosen one' early in the presidential cycle, and perhaps was handed that opportunity on a silver platter. With a Republican primary that looked like a farcical vaudevillian revue at times or a room full of squabbling school children, one would expect her to trounce the victor by high double digits--a Republican candidate who is more like a carnival hawker, a cunning and egotistical charlatan who is a pathological fabricator, has committed innumerable verbal faux pas, and fomented hatred and incited riotous rage through his supporters against certain sector of our citizenry: undignified behavior of the basest form. His portfolio of misdeeds, dishonest business practices, myriad fronts of dubious nature designed to dispossess unsuspecting customers of their monies, a trail of bankruptcies, unpaid bills, unsavory acts of fund usage from his foundation for personal use and campaign donations for persons to look the other way on his fraudulent business dealings, should be grounds for imprisonment. Mr. Trump's disdain for the Mexicans, Muslims, and African Americans is well founded and reflected in the comments he has made all through the primaries. Some of those statements are patently racist and unconstitutional. His name calling of women, making crude remarks, and having little or no reverence for women, is quite obnoxious. He has made numerous sexist remarks, even questionable comments about his own daughter. His latest incessant salvo against Ms. Machado is further proof of his nature. His bravado about making money on the backs of the less fortunate, not paying taxes, and gaming the system to get rich is revolting. His call for Russia to hack into sensitive information of our country, and his reverence for the Russian President is downright treasonous, yet few conservative commentators called him out. I will be honest, I am not gaga over either of these candidates but I am certainly not impervious to reason: it is not even a matter of lesser of the two evils. Albeit, both the candidates are a bit slick for my taste, but the difference is that Mr. Trump is dripping with the type of slickness you taste when a diner has neglected to change the griddle oil for a while and the food that had the misfortune of gracing that griddle finally hits your palate--the unsavory, thick, nauseating, and rancid film of grease that lingers for hours afterwards. So who are these working class white Americans or even educated middle class independents that are willing to ignore Ms. Clinton's decades of experience? Sexism is one explanation, and lack of traditional jobs is another: the sort of job that didn't require any sort of degree or certification that still paid well. A lot of the workers supporting Mr.Trump have sat on the sidelines waiting for the tide to turn while not seeking further education or different training, but those jobs are gone for good! Steve Jobs chose to produce the iPhone in China (and admitted as much that it wasn't possible to produce it here) because when he was furious about a design flaw in the original iPhone, which had a plastic screen that scratched: he ordered his team to change the screen to glass in a matter of weeks before 1st iPhone shipped out, and the company that undertook the challenge and retooled their factory to meet his requirement was Chinese, even though the glass would be sourced from Corning. The majority of corporations look out for themselves and convenience, not their workers. As more and more women are outpacing men in education, out-graduating them in college and at times (but still not often enough) out-earning them: a further source of consternation for these men. The role reversal is a bitter pill for a lot of these men to take, and for many Ms. Clinton is the zenith of that trend: a woman who is going to be possibly calling the shots at the highest level possible in this country. Ms. Clinton is favored to win this election mostly due to demographic statistics--her goodwill with urban women, Hispanics, and African Americans is still in good stead. Her staid mannerism, straitlaced style, and wry humor will not beguile any millennials: she urgently needs to find a voice of her own - and not her surrogates' - that resonates. Whether the white working class and educated independents see her formidable experience as the stronger argument remains to be seen--her poll numbers and her admirable debate performance notwithstanding. But none of this should be taken for granted. She is not going to move the voters with her oratory skills, or by making promises that everyone already predicts. She needs to narrow her communication gap with the voters by dispensing with the guarded persona that muddles her message--even though the content in her message is far more defined, corporeal, and nuanced than her opponent's rather murky "plans" (declarations only, no details). She runs circles around Mr.Trump in terms of substance but the fool's gold of style may still be her undoing. She needs to discard her carefully drafted talking points and just go off the script and speak off the cuff--letting the passion that drives her deeds also fuel her words. With the election less than month and a half away, Ms. Clinton is the most experienced and prepared candidate for president we have had in our lifetime, but what the public really want is to feel the authenticity and emotion behind her plans. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Chubb, Travelers, American Airlines Group, Carnival and Walt Disney
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Chubb, Travelers, American Airlines Group, Carnival and Walt Disney
Скандал с самовозгорающимися фаблетами Galaxy Note 7 пока не думает утихать. Компания Samsung отозвала все потенциально опасные аппараты, но недавно начали появляться сообщения о взрывах устройств из новой партии. В этой связи компании, осуществляющие пассажирские перевозки, вводят запреты на использование Galaxy Note 7. Как сообщают сетевые источники, вслед за авиаперевозчиками на запретные меры вынуждены пойти крупнейшие круизные компании. В их числе названы такие известные операторы круизных судов, как Carnival, Costa Cruises, Cunard, Disney Cruise Line, Fathom, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises, P&O Cruses, Royal Caribbean и Seabourn.
This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.