Another takeaway from the interview (which has been mentioned by numerous commentators already) is that it's still quite unclear how a Trump presidency would work in practice. Trump continues to have a hard time explaining how he'd implement his ideas. On other occasions, he doesn't really answer questions. The Donald is, quite frankly, drowning in vagaries and obfuscation.
Our elite class loves to explain to laid-off workers why their woes are their own fault. They don't have a college degree. They should have started their own companies. They're on drugs. They're too fat or lazy or dim to quickly adapt. Trump beckons... "There will be so many jobs." "It will be beautiful."
If Mr. Trump wants to address media organizations that "write purposely negative and horrible, false articles" then the law is already established as to his rights to do that.
I have never been so proud of my journalism profession in my life! Several hundred reporters, diplomats, and politicians celebrated the release and re...
If we were to be honest, we would describe Mr. Trump as a reflection of ourselves; not only of those who agree with his statements, both openly and behind closed doors, but of the apathy of those in all parties who know better and refuse to speak up.
History has shown that Americans will, and have, accepted unlikeable leaders, when individuals possess exceptional talent. But in 2016, likeability, not talent, may be the most important attribute going, because it insures amnesty for insults, snarky come-backs and wild accusations.
Want to make a political scientist's head explode? Explain to them how Donald Trump is a winner because he is leading polls and winning crowded primaries. In the back of their mind, the political scientist is thinking "he's 'winning' because the vote is fractured," and resisting the urge to say "the worst way to pick someone for office is to just take the person with the most votes, but not a majority."
Since the new year, much of the Clinton campaign coverage has revolved around trying to detail her weaknesses, stitching together scenarios where she would fail, and just generally bemoaning what an awful campaign she was supposedly running.
For some strange reason, many American citizens today seem to believe that because an individual may have come from a privileged background or a 'political' family, they should either have a right to attain elected office or will naturally do a better job than someone who isn't 'privileged' or part of a political dynasty.
I am not defending Hillary Clinton. That is something she can do for herself -- or not. What concerns me is the creation of a bogus standard, one that is unattainable in both the private and public realm, and one which ironically invites lying and misrepresentation.
The Washington Post and Jonathan Capehart seem to be unwilling to accept the evidence and refuse to admit that they were wrong. They did not update the article. They did not admit their mistake.
Given this unambiguous show of support for charters, how could our governors have the chutzpah to swear an oath to protect public schools, as this would pose a crisis of conscience, not to speak of a conflict of interest akin to setting a fox to guarding a hen house?
Those of us that prefer Uber to the other alternatives hope we are wrong about the negative impact of the logo and brand changes. From the market reaction so far and a deeper understanding how human brains process logos and brands, I don't think we are.
Media message received: Clinton is loud and cantankerous! But it's not just awkward gender stereotypes that are in play these days. It's a much larger pattern of thumb-on-the-scale coverage and commentary. Just look at what seemed to be the press' insatiable appetite to frame Clinton's Iowa caucus win last week as an unnerving loss.
If Jeff Bezos, the billionaire CEO of Amazon, has his way, thousands of drones could soon be hurtling through the airspace above our heads, delivering millions of packages to Amazon's customers. Instead of having to wait the eternity of a day to receive their orders, consumers could get them in 30 minutes, or less.
We have serious doubts that we'll see Trump at any future debates -- after all, if he can blow them off with impunity, why would he subject himself to them in the first place?