Trump interjected, “Heh, heh,” pronouncing each syllable in a way that validated the realism of countless cartoon voiceovers, and removed any doubt that he was talking about sexual, rather than political or financial, loyalty. But it was also a remarkable reminder of the proximity of all of those qualities in the Trumpian mind.
.. If properly executed, that sort of thing might have some resonance, although the ready answer is that, rather than mendaciously engaging in some woman-destroying scheme, she had simply trusted her husband.
.. Trump also told the Times that there was “never a problem” with his own marriages, which makes one wonder what, exactly, his wife at the time, Ivana, and soon-to-be second wife, Marla, were so upset about when they confronted each other at a ski resort in Aspen. (“It was very unladylike,” Ivana later told Barbara Walters.) When the Times pressed him on the Marla question, he said, “I wasn’t President of the United States.”
.. There is a need to speak more thoughtfully about the corrosive effect of money in politics and the uneven costs and benefits of free trade, and, indeed, about political dynasties. But Trump’s not doing that. When his bigotry and his speculations about sex aren’t at the center of his speeches, his narcissism is.
.. After all, the explanation for her wanting to be President couldn’t simply be that she has policy goals of her own. (Trump, at another point in the speech, said of Clinton, “She’s never done anything meaningful.”) In this scenario, there must be something else going on, something involving money and men who were out of sight—foreigners, too.
.. At the rally, Trump called her, effectively, a traitor—disloyalty to country being of a piece with disloyalty to husband.
.. Lester Holt asked both candidates if they would accept the results of the election, and Trump, after some hedging and insinuations about immigrants voting, said yes. (Clinton did so quickly and clearly.) In an interview with the Times, though, he suggested that he was rethinking that position; he should be asked the question at every debate. In Manheim, he was preparing his civil-society-slashing excuses.
Dems build files to track Trump ‘stain’
The party aims to hang this GOP nominee around Republican necks for years.
Archiving video. Compiling tweets, appearances at rallies, and statements of support. Building files of everything that Republican candidates for governors’ mansions down to statehouse sets have done or said in support.
Newly confident in Hillary Clinton’s November prospects, Democrats are now plotting a post-Election Day campaign against individual Republicans for nominating—and sticking by—Donald Trump.
.. Party operatives in key states, with help from a few Washington players, are starting to fluff the feathers on the Trump albatross they want to hang around the GOP’s neck in 2017, 2018, even 2020. Anyone who stood with Trump, these Democrats intend to say, enabled racism, irresponsibility and a departure from conservative principles.
.. “It’s sort of a litmus test for what kind of a Republican you are
.. Mitch Stewart, a top aide in both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, has been actively searching for donors to start a super PAC that he envisions as a searchable, open source database to track what every Republican politician, from statewide office to Congress to state senate and assembly, has said in support of Trump—and to have a small staff to constantly be reminding voters of what they said.
.. “They’re treating Trump as toxic. I don’t think that’s true,”
.. Stewart predicted that what Trump represents as a challenge to the system, as well as concerns about immigration and jobs going overseas
.. If Clinton wins, Democrats expect that a nastier Trump who refuses to fade – remaining an hourly presence on social media and calling into the news networks for interviews – would mean an ongoing stream of new opportunities to stick it to the Republicans who supported him.
Trump’s Fellow Travelers
Mr. Trump couldn’t have gotten as far as he has without the support, active or de facto, of many people who understand perfectly well what he is and what his election would mean, but have chosen not to take a stand.
Let’s start with the Republican political establishment, which is supporting Mr. Trump just as if he were a normal presidential nominee.
.. They know what kind of man they’re dealing with — but they are spending this election pretending that we’re having a serious discussion about policy, that a vote for Mr. Trump is simply a vote for lower marginal tax rates. And they should not be allowed to flush the fact of their Trump support down the memory hole when the election is behind us.
.. when Henry Kissinger and George Schultz piously declared that they were not going to endorse anyone, it was a profile in cowardice.
.. only a handful have risen to the occasion and been willing to say that if keeping him out of the White House is important, you need to vote for Mrs. Clinton.
.. A few seem to believe in the old doctrine of social fascism — better to see the center-left defeated by the hard right, because that sets the stage for a true progressive revolution. That worked out wonderfully in 1930s Germany.
Trump’s Tax (Avoidance) Plan
His clearest policy proposal is a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy, reversing the progress Obama has made against inequality. Trump would shower $1.3 million a year on the average member of the top 0.1 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, wants to raise their taxes further (but still not to the levels of the post-War years).
The larger meaning of Trump’s tax avoidance seems quite clear. He’s running for president partly to help other wealthy people be like him – and avoid paying taxes. If you want to understand his economic agenda, look at his tax dodge.