RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Taibbi writes: "A new attack ad put out by the Hillary Clinton campaign this week achieves the near-impossible, making Donald Trump look wronged and (almost) like a victim. More believably, it makes the Democrats look sleazy and disingenuous in comparison."

A new Hillary Clinton campaign ad hits Donald Trump for saying in 2006 that he hoped the real-estate market would crash because 'you could make a lot of money.' (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)
A new Hillary Clinton campaign ad hits Donald Trump for saying in 2006 that he hoped the real-estate market would crash because 'you could make a lot of money.' (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

Hillary Clinton's New Anti-Trump Ad Misses the Mark

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

27 May 16


Clinton accuses Trump of "rooting" for a crash caused by her own donors

new attack ad put out by the Hillary Clinton campaign this week achieves the near-impossible, making Donald Trump look wronged and (almost) like a victim. More believably, it makes the Democrats look sleazy and disingenuous in comparison.

The ad begins with a picture of a grinning Trump and the words, "In 2006, Donald Trump was hoping for a real estate crash."

It proceeds to a series of grim scenes from the financial crisis. Against a Roger and Me-esque montage of blighted neighborhoods, it reads off stats: "9 million Americans lost their jobs. 5 million people lost their homes."

Then it returns to a grinning Trump, and another line:

"And the man who could be our next president…

was rooting for it to happen."

Then we hear Trump talking about how a bursting of the real-estate bubble would be an opportunity for rich folks like himself.

"I sort of hope that happens, because then people like me would go in and buy," Trump says, in an interview from 2006. "If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you could make a lot of money."

Cut to: "If Donald wins, you lose."

This ad is disingenuous in a dozen different ways. For one thing, the destruction that the Clinton campaign describes was not caused by people swooping in after the bubble burst, buying at the bottom of the market.

It was caused by the existence of a speculative bubble in the first place. And that bubble was inflated not by Donald Trump, but by the people who have at least in part bankrolled Hillary Clinton's career: namely, Wall Street banks.

In the mid-2000s, a speculative mania swallowed up the real-estate markets largely because Wall Street discovered a new (and often criminally fraudulent) way to peddle mortgage securities. 

The basic trick involved big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers — the loans of people who often lacked verified incomes and had poor credit histories — and repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities. 

Basically they took risky loans and presented them as somewhat safer investments to a range of investors, all of whom later got clobbered: pension funds, hedge funds, unions, even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This technique, of turning rancid home loans into a kind of financial hamburger and then selling it off as grade-A beef to institutional investors, created artificial demand in the real-estate markets, which in turn led to the speculative mania.

The bubble stayed inflated for a few years because a continual influx of new investors kept the old investors from losing their shirts for a while. The layman's term for this is a Ponzi scheme.

So when Donald Trump in 2006 says, "If there is a bubble burst, you could make a lot of money," he might sound crass, but he wasn't wrong. That bubble was always going to burst. Those investors who got creamed were always going to get creamed.

And the fault was with the people who drove this speculative craze by knowingly peddling bad merchandise and continually driving the markets upward. Think, for example, of Citigroup, which was selling huge masses of mortgage securities even as its traders were saying things to each other like, "We should start praying… I would not be surprised if half of these loans went down."

We know the names of many of these companies because many of them have agreed to pay huge settlements for their involvement in selling mismarked mortgage securities.

Four of them — the aforementioned Citigroup, along with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase — are among Hillary Clinton's top six contributors for her career.

The new Clinton ad references people in foreclosure — it even shows a big, scary foreclosure sign. Many of the same banks also agreed to massive settlements for, among other things, using fraudulent documents to kick people out of their houses. Major Clinton donors Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase were signatories to the original $25 billion foreclosure settlement, for instance.

As for the whole issue of "rooting" for a crash so as to make money off the misery of others, what Donald Trump was talking about — and it's galling to the point of being physically painful to have to defend him here — may sound scummy, but was neither illegal nor even unethical, unless you want to call this kind of capitalism unethical (which some might).

Trump wasn't rooting for an avoidable disaster, like a 9/11. With this bubble, the disaster had already happened. The properties were already overvalued. Trump or not, that pain was coming.

Taking advantage of market inefficiencies is what investors are supposed to do, a la the traders in The Big Short who spotted the corruption in the real-estate markets early and bet accordingly. Personally I doubt Trump was smart enough to bet so much as a penny out of his alleged billions on the market collapsing, but if he did, it wouldn't have been unethical, just cold.

The same can't be said for Goldman Sachs, the company famous for paying Hillary Clinton $675,000 for three speeches.

In the spring of 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by Michigan's Carl Levin, released a giant report about the way Goldman profited from the crash by shorting the market even as it was advising clients in the opposite direction.

This report detailed how in 2006, the same year that Donald Trump was talking out loud about the bubble bursting, Goldman found itself stuck with what amounted to a $6 billion bet on the housing market.

But at the end of the year the firm analyzed its position, saw the coming trouble, and realized it needed a change in strategy. Goldman's leaders, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein (seen here warmly embracing Hillary Clinton) and CFO David Viniar, decided that they needed to unload as many of their mortgage holdings as possible. 

One particular quote the Senate investigators dug up stands out. In late December of 2006, Viniar wrote an email to his chief mortgage officer (emphasis mine):

"Let's be aggressive distributing things," he said, "because there will be very good opportunities as the markets [go] into what is likely to be even greater distress, and we want to be in a position to take advantage of them."

This, coming from the chief financial officer of a firm that has been among Hillary Clinton's top donors, is exactly what Donald Trump said.

The difference was, Donald Trump was just talking about making money for himself. Goldman executives were talking about making money at their own clients' expense.

Two months after that Viniar memo, in February of 2007, Blankfein wrote an email of his own.

"Could/should we have cleaned up these books before," Blankfein wrote, "and are we doing enough right now to sell off cats and dogs in other books throughout the division?"

By "cats and dogs," Blankfein meant the toxic mortgage holdings he wanted off his company's books. How did they get rid of them? They sold them off to customers.

In one particular deal, called Hudson, Goldman unloaded $1.2 billion worth of "cats and dogs." They neglected to tell the client that these came from their own inventory, saying instead that the holdings were "sourced from the street."

By the spring of 2007, Goldman executives were in a panic about the likely meltdown of the real-estate markets. In May, a senior exec gave a presentation saying, "There is real meltdown potential."

The execs scanned the earth for suckers willing to buy up their doomed products. They found a hedge fund in Australia willing to buy a $100 million mortgage-based deal called Timberwolf, promising returns as high as 60 percent while privately laughing about finding the ultimate sucker.

"I found a white elephant, flying pig and unicorn all at once," clucked one of the bank's sales reps. A few days later, after the deal was off their books, another Goldman exec famously trumpeted, "Boy, that Timberwolf was one shitty deal."

I spent most of the last eight years poring through disgusting stories like this, reporting on the dreary question of what caused the 2008 crash. All of that work was done before Hillary Clinton announced she would run for president. This isn't about Hillary Clinton for me. It's about the continuing influence of these companies.

These firms have mostly avoided blame for the crisis, partly because this subject is complicated, but also because mainstream politicians from both parties have refused to point a finger at them. For that, Hillary Clinton probably is at fault now, contributing to a failure among major-party politicians to be straight with the public that dates back to the first days of the crisis.

It's bad strategy. Trump is a lunatic, but he's gaining strength because his supporters believe his story about being so rich that he's free to tell it like it is. They equally believe his windy diatribes about Beltway pols like Jeb Bush and Hillary being compromised by the great gobs of money they take from corporate donors.

By blaming Trump for a problem caused by their own political patrons, Hillary and the Democrats are walking face-first into Trump's rhetorical buzz-saw. Couldn't they find something else to hit him with? your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+44 # A_Har 2016-05-27 11:07
You missed it Matt that the Clintons and the Trump family are long time FRIENDS.

And, isn't it strange that about a year ago Trump said this:

Donald Trump names his favorite prez: Bill Clinton

By Adam B. Lerner

06/17/15 02:09 PM EDT

This puts an interesting twist on it.

Donald Trump talked politics with Bill Clinton weeks before launching 2016 bid

And so everyone, have a good look at the picture in the article; it is SO cozy.

So the media is building up hysteria around all this; is this divide simply an illusion? Both candidates represent the OLIGARCHY. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump won but he still implemented the same policies that HRC supported such as the TPP. After all he has been consulting with the Council on Foreign Relations and other such elite organizations.

Besides which for the past two presidents--Bus h and Obama: "Before the election the promises, after the election the alibis." They did a big turnaround on their campaign promises.

And after Taibbi wrote so much about the grifting of the big banks, it is disingenous for him to discount their influence on HRC considering how much money she has received from them.

Her $peeche$ to them were $o valuable.
+29 # harleysch 2016-05-27 21:57
Matt missed another key point: the bubble inflated, in part, due to Bill Clinton's support for the repeal of Glass Steagall, which allowed commercial banks to get in on the trading of MBS and other funny money scams. Hillary defends Bill's support for the repeal of Glass Steagall, and sides with the Too Big to Fail banks today, by saying she would oppose a return to Glass Steagall.
+13 # marind 2016-05-28 14:53
Exactly. I kept looking for that piece of info, but nada in the article. Slick Willie's signing off on Glass Steagall was one of the biggest reasons for the 2008 crash- Wall Street was allowed to go to the casino with OUR MONEY, in a "heads we win/tails you lose" game.

PS: Hillary's son in law is a HEDGE FUND MANAGER, i.e. a high level gambler with other people's money.
+3 # Polisage 2016-05-29 20:43
Bill Clinton signed off on the Phil Gramm swindle that was steamrolled through the omnibus reconciliation bill in the name of "Financial Modernization." Somebody up there likes her. Gramm went on to become Vice-Chairman of UBS. Wonder what's in store for us next?
+5 # guomashi 2016-05-27 11:32
"By blaming Trump for a problem caused by their own political patrons, Hillary and the Democrats are walking face-first into Trump's rhetorical buzz-saw. Couldn't they find something else to hit him with?"

They can't hit him with his stands on:
-no free trade,
-protecting social security,
-no knee jerk support for israel,
-negotiations instead of invasions
... they would lose.

so what do they have left?
racism, meaningless demonization and lies.

Trump is light years from perfect, but even so, he is much closer to perfection than Hillary.
+45 # A_Har 2016-05-27 11:46
Perhaps, but what about that cozy relationship? AND these are just campaign promises. As I have written before, Bush ran as a small government conservative who would NEVER do nation building. Then when he got in, he promoted two wars and expanded the Federal Government larger than all previous presidents.

Then with Obama it was "Change You Can Believe In." He continued the Bush policies despite what his campaign touted.

Bush's Third Term--You're living it.

Actually Bush's third and fourth terms....!
And to top this all off, he became the *primary promoter* of all these toxic trade deals--TTIP, TPP and so on.

So considering the direction of all this, you expect anything different?

I don't--not from this crowd.

What they say means NOTHING; what they Do is EVERYTHING.
+23 # CarolinMexico 2016-05-27 14:01
Surely, you are kidding.

The idea that women will fair better under Trump. is nuts.
+14 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-27 14:34
Dear CarolinMexico,
Actually I believe that women WILL fare better under Trump than Clinton.
Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be such a reckless and dangerous warmonger with incredibly poor judgement that that she could very likely trigger a nuclear war.
That would be far worse than what Trump might do.
+38 # sashapyle 2016-05-27 14:17
Actually, he's not. She's a crook, a corporatist and a hawk, but Trump denies the existence of climate change and that makes him even worse than Hillary because he has no good qualities to offset that fatal, dangerous flaw. And just in general, I prefer a corrupt neocon to a fascist, though it's a sad choice. I want Bernie!!
+21 # Aliazer 2016-05-27 14:58
sashapyle, "Fascist and Neocon" are two faces of the same coin!!
+25 # dbrize 2016-05-27 15:13
Quoting Aliazer:
sashapyle, "Fascist and Neocon" are two faces of the same coin!!

Neocon/neolibs represent the foreign policy/military branch. The central bankers cover the financial ripoffs, the global corporations provide the "product" and the CIA handles the troublemakers.

It's quite a system for those that play ball.

The old school liberal John T Flynn, sadly long forgotten, predicted all this over seven decades ago:

"All that is needed to set us definitely on the road to a Fascist society is war. It will of course be a modified form of Fascism at first."

John T Flynn
+11 # sashapyle 2016-05-28 00:14
Just returned and saw Aliazer's comment. I see your point most definitely. I would say the neocons are all about money and fascists are all about nationalistic posturing of an even more primitive nature. Fascism makes no attempt to hide its racism, fear-mongering and violence; the neocons cloak theirs in smooth maneuvers, doublespeak and calculated PR. Trump resembles Mussolini and HRC resembles GHWB and his phony "thousand points of light." A pretty unappetizing choice of entrées! Thanks for a good thought-provoki ng comment though.
+7 # rocback 2016-05-27 14:21
guomashi, how is privatizing social security "protecting" it?
how is being against TPP being for it
how is arming Japan, S. Korea and Saudi Arabia with nukes "closer to perfection"?

You have a distorted view of reality.
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-28 16:53
Quoting crocback:
You have a distorted view of reality.

crocback, MY MAN !! ;-D

Aside from the *preciously RIDICULOUS little phalanx of Straw Men that you have so revealingly set up for guomashi, I am THRILLED to see you ON this Q today !

No, *REALLY ! ;-D

I was *SO concerned that you might have the most BASIC *street level common sense to stay *AWAY from the comment Q on an article by a man who reports *REAL *NUMBERS as opposed to your *own twisted little Chuckle-numbers *crap !

A man reporting the TRUTH about your repulsive and war criminal employer HRC ! How *dense CAN you possibly *BE ? ;-D

Even tho you don't have the Sand to go after the article *AS SUCH, just the simple GIFTING to the Q of this *DIRECT comparison on the SAME PAGE between *your swill and the fully informed and *trenchantly accurate analysis of Matt Taibbi above ? *Freakin' PRICELESS !

CONJURING up for us the phenomenon of a brainless *Chihuahua such as yourself attempting to attack a Trained and Experienced *Doberman like Taibbi ? *DELICIOUS !

Gotta give you props for having the common sense fear to hide shivering under the sofa on THAT one, crocback ! ;-D

crocback, I just GLORY IN watching you "step in it" clear up to your beady and shifty little eye sockets ! ;-D

Just GREAT Gratitude to *YOU ! ;-D *SINCERELY ! ;-D
+38 # Floridatexan 2016-05-27 15:29
Trump is a con man and a liar. That anyone believes he has the desire to help this country is mind boggling.
0 # Jim Rocket 2016-05-30 09:47
Trump has already walked back his Israel stance thanks to a $100 million pledge from Sheldon Adelson. Trump will abandon most of his "heretical" positions in return for GOP support but he will likely do it very quietly or just lie about it so as not to lose his rigorously intellectual base.
+75 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-27 13:22
Quote from above:

"More believably, it makes the Democrats look sleazy and disingenuous in comparison."

The problem is that by by doing everything in their power to rig the primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and their candidate HRC
ARE CLEARLY sleazy and disingenuous!

The Democratic party has disgraced itself and unless their leadership comes to their senses and put forth Bernie Sanders as the candidate they will lose the election in November along with countless down ticket races.

Hillary Clinton PROMISED to debate Bernie in California early on as part of an AGREEMENT for a pre-Iowa debate.
Clearly her promises mean nothing!
Broken promises are the epitome of sleazy and disingenuous!

WAKE UP DNC, Bernie Sanders is your only path to beat Trump!
+24 # stan van houcke 2016-05-27 13:47
I quote:

'it makes the Democrats look sleazy.' it makes them look sleazy, because their are sleazy, like almost all american politicians.
+39 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-27 13:48
Adding to the above article should be the fact that while Bill Clinton was President he made it much easier for the Wall Street fraud machine to engage in their criminal activities while at the same time promoting trade policies that threw millions of Americans out of work and thus making them unable to pay their mortgages.

I am convinced that there is a great deal of correspondence relating to this subject contained in the thousands of missing Clinton emails.

If they come into the public record Hillary will be last.
+16 # Floridatexan 2016-05-27 15:34
That was a REPUBLICAN bill with a veto-proof majority...Clin ton couldn't have stopped it, and maybe he believed the hype at the time...but the push came from the GOP...not long before George W Bush stole the 2000 convenient. And then Bush created a business climate of corruption and the perfect petri dish for the malfeasance of the financial sector...regula tion...what regulation? We don't need no stinkin' regulation.
+49 # CarolinMexico 2016-05-27 13:58
Clinton's strategists are idiots. My favorite is how they hired a PR firm to troll Sanders partisans, totally pissing off the people they need to win the election. It is so consistent with her neocon bent -- kill anybody that does not go along with the HRC ascendency. Unreal!
+29 # Polisage 2016-05-27 14:45
The DNC is pissing off the people they need. We need a new party.
-40 # mmc 2016-05-27 14:19
I hope Taibbi and the rest of you are all happy with Trump as POTUS, because that's clearly what you want. Then see what the rich do to you. Good luck in the gulags.
+38 # jdd 2016-05-27 14:40
Simply unfair and disingenuous to call Taibbi a Trump supporter. He is merely pointing out, and I guess you missed it, that it was Hillary's Wall Street patrons were responsible for the crash, and for the $14 trillions in bailouts which leave you the taxpayer on the hook. That is the key to her opposition to return of Glass-Steagall, which is a prerequisite to financial reform, as both Bernie and Martin O'Malley pointed out. If you are really outraged, as you indicate, you will do whatever possible to see that HRC, who took $8 million from hedge fund mogul Geore Soros alone (that's right $8 million from one man), does not get the Democratic nomination.
+47 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-27 14:42
Toxic Hillary has already lost!
If you do not want Trump then do everything you can to promote Bernie Sanders!
-18 # mmc 2016-05-28 12:56
Sorry, though Trump may have gotten where he is by using the bankruptcy laws, Mr. Sanders programs, while sounding great, will bankrupt the country.
-1 # Jim Rocket 2016-05-30 09:50
The country did just fine under that radical leftie, Eisenhower, and Bernie's policies come with far lower taxes. Read a book!
+45 # Polisage 2016-05-27 14:44
Silly comments. Bernie is our best chance as POTUS. The DNC has tried to rig a "Sophie's choice" election but we don't play that game.
-48 # ojg 2016-05-27 14:52
Bernie is history and if you all get Trump, well you deserve him.
+8 # economagic 2016-05-27 20:16
Thank you. I would be more than glad to have him, another Clinton not so much. Why aren't you at least talking about the really REALLY scary guy instead of the one who is scary only to Wall Street?
+1 # Jim Rocket 2016-05-30 09:58
If Hillary's campaign team were competent I'd could relax a bit but they're not. They could easily blow this election. Check out last Friday's episode of Bill Maher. The creator of "Dilbert" laid out how brilliant Trump is at manipulating people and the media and how Team Hillary are bungling it. He predicted a Trump win a year and a half ago. Yikes! If the Dems are smart they will wait until the convention and decide then. They will also push to have Bernie debate Trump (which Trump will avoid like the plague). That will either really damage Trump or show Team Hillary how to handle him.
+27 # librarian1984 2016-05-27 15:31
Of course HRC's ad misses the mark. She has a tin ear and doesn't understand the populist mood at all, and she will take the Democratic Party down with her disastrous candidacy, and good riddance.
+37 # dotlady 2016-05-27 15:39
As vultures descend on a carcass, businessmen like Trump closely "follow the banking profession - it's called "disaster capitalism." That is, they prey on people in the aftermath of a disaster, including those caused by privatization (economist Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys), neo-cons and the big banks. All writ large in Naomi Klein's great book "Shock Doctrine."
+52 # mh1224jst 2016-05-27 15:40
Let's focus on the economics of the crash: It is actually true that property values fell considerably (about $6 trillion). Homeowners (mostly middle class and below), lost that value, and much of it was picked up by wealthy people buying on the cheap when mortgages defaulted, or buying at depressed prices. This was a transfer of financial wealth to the top.

The crash was itself one aspect of the continuing, steady decline of the middle class after 1980. Growing income and wealth inequality reduced aggregate and lower-bracket wealth substantially as income and wealth concentrated at the top. This is still going on, because the causes of inequality growth have not been corrected.

That said, economic reality favors Sanders, not Clinton, who is getting inadequate economic advice from Paul Krugman. The issue is not whether Trump and others gaining real estate are unethical, it's whether capitalism is a moral system, when it allows severe inequality and the consequent collapse of the marketplace.
+15 # Ken Halt 2016-05-27 17:15
I admire cogency, well done!
+18 # soularddave 2016-05-27 18:54
Yes. Speaking to the subject at hand amd making points related to what we're talking about. That said...

Trump & Clinton are *establishment* candidates, promising their version of "more of the same". Bernie, OTOH, is attaching himself to the election apparatus in the most logical way, to promote achieving exactly what he says, by promoting a vision that is attainable with a movement he's encourraging.

We see the movement gaining traction as large numbers of us gain understanding how the system is rigged against us. So We now understand that it is the ESTABLISHMENT and its candidates that are trying to fool us.

Google "Sanders vs. either of the establishment candidates" and see which way the movement is going. There's still six months to go. Marginalize Bernie at your OWN peril.
+4 # actinrid 2016-05-27 15:41
To quote fictional senator Jay Billington Bulworth..."The democratic party has some shit to pay. They're going to pay it in the ghetto. They're going to pay it in the ghetto".
+13 # m... 2016-05-27 18:46
Its a terrible and awkward ad presented in the most bad-acting, storytelling way imaginable. It made me cringe.
Its now a useful Ad if only Clinton and the entirety of the DNC can see it as a great example of what Democrats should have done long ago and not do to Trump now.
Trump has taught them an incredibly valuable lesson.
Trump 'EMBRACED' the Label Clinton tossed at him as if she's experimenting with a list of 'Stuff' to throw at Trump just to see what might stick.
Trump grabbed it midair and made it his without skipping a beat.
Clinton did the work, paid the money and Trump just took it, made it his and said 'Thanks' with a big 'F.U.'
Democrats should have done this same thing decades ago when the Gingrich Revolution came along. They were called Obstructionists . They ran from it like babies. So, they were called that even louder during the BuSh years.
Democrats should have grabbed 'Obstructionist ' and worn it like a badge of honor. They did not and paid a stiff price.
Clinton is playing by an outdated and useless playbook.
I think nothing would bring trouble to Trump more than ignoring him and/or 'baiting' him into emotional outbursts.
Anything else is like sending him gift wrapped ammunition bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC.
Secretary Clinton-- if you become the nominee instead of the better choice-- Bernie --please, think of yourself as the underdog and think 'Guerrilla Tactics.' Come down off your pedestal or you're gonna lose.
-8 # JohnBoanerges 2016-05-28 03:11
One liners at debate: Hey, Hillary, you give Secret Santa a whole new meaning, don't you? And how long before Lolita Bill goes from unindicted child molester to orange jumpsuit Johnny. And I know what rhymes with orange jumpsuit Klinton, a 2nd orange jumpsuit Klinton. Cough your way out of this one and get off this stage while you do.
+9 # Doc Mary 2016-05-27 19:50
Must be something wrong with me. I'm not a Clinton fan, but I liked that ad. Perhaps it's because I remember a time when bragging about making money while everybody around you is losing their houses was not something to be proud of.

And make no mistake about it, Trump has benefited from the hard times he's caused for others. The Taj Mahal was ahead of its time - it crashed and burned before the rest of Atlantic City got hit with new and unwanted competition - legalized gambling in the neighboring states that used to provide so many customers. No, The Taj Mahal folded when it should have been doing GREAT!

And when it folded, Trump had himself positioned so he didn't really suffer - especially given access to family cash. For him. Not Atlantic City.

As for the 2,000 casino and hotel workers, small businesses in Atlantic City - trapped in the downward spiral of the multiplier - they had no financial cushions to stop their fall. They went bankrupt. They lost their livelihoods. They lost their homes.

So - maybe you folks all think that chastising The Donald for bragging about how he makes money while others suffer is giving him another chance to show what a brilliant businessman is - but i thought it was an accurate depiction of a self-obsessed narcissist.
0 # Jim Rocket 2016-05-30 10:03
You are right but that sort of thing doesn't work at all on Trump Nation. People like him because he's a reality star. Reason WILL NOT WORK on these people. The dems should hire some comedians to penetrate Trump's thin Bill Maher's meme: "Whiny little bitch."
+3 # pupdude 2016-05-27 20:16
Taibbi has a point for sure. HRC far from perfect. DT far worse IMO.

Two huge differences ... #1. SCOTUS.
#2. Climate Change.

Good night. Have a nice weekend.
+9 # guomashi 2016-05-27 20:34
Quoting pupdude:
Taibbi has a point for sure. HRC far from perfect. DT far worse IMO.

Two huge differences ... #1. SCOTUS.

you forgot

#3. HRC's WW III.
+6 # A_Har 2016-05-28 18:56
Quoting guomashi:
you forgot

#3. HRC's WW III.

Neocons think they can WIN IT.
+7 # Nominae 2016-05-29 05:34
Quoting A_Har:
Quoting guomashi:
you forgot

#3. HRC's WW III.

Neocons think they can WIN IT.

Yeah .... Neocons have thought that about every war since Viet Nam. *Sterling Track Record there, ay ? ;-D
+8 # cordleycoit 2016-05-27 23:39
What did you expect? Honesty from a Clinton.
+2 # kath 2016-05-28 07:29
Hillary, not to mention Slick Willy, Debbie WS, and a Democratic cast of thousands ARE "sleazy and disingenuous." That would be why they look that way. If we're going to get a proven liar for president, I wish she were at least goods at it.
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-28 17:31
Quoting kath:
If we're going to get a proven liar for president, I wish she were at least goods at it.

Just makes a person almost miss The Gipper, doesn't it ? "Well ...., Mommy,
the Sandinistas ...... fantasy... fumble ... misquote .... invented numbers ... mumble ... have a jelly bean ...? " ;-D

Gotta say, tho, for your absolutely *Golden-Throate d Liar of a President,
love him or hate him, *NO ONE holds a *candle to Obama !

He may not have earned that Nobel Peace Prize, but I would put *THAT
guy up for an OSCAR *any day of the week ! ;-D

Slick Willy was *also quite the convincing prevaricator, until he allowed himself to be cornered into that "It all depends upon what your definition
of 'IS' is." Tragic, really. Kind of like watching the GREAT Ali box in his 50s.

Hillary, poor dear, has never been *talented at ANYTHING ! She has long
*been the most tone deaf, ham fisted, club footed excuse for a politician that ever drew breath.

That a *highly skilled, (if *also quite sleazy) politician like Slick Willy ended
up married to Hillary is *as counterintuitiv e as when John ended up marrying Yoko and trying to sell *that yowling pup off to the public as a "Singer" !
WoW ! ;-D

Yoko tho, unlike Hillary, actually *does have talent in *other areas, but, in the same way that Hillary has never *BEEN a deft politician, Yoko has never *BEEN a singer. ;-D

Ah, the eternal mysteries of life ! ;-D
-4 # Robbee 2016-05-28 09:41
too farfetched? notes - # CarolinMexico 2016-05-27 14:01
Surely, you are kidding.
The idea that women will fair better under Trump. is nuts.

- carol, what you fail to take into account, is the number of rump trojans here on rsn! - dying to elect rump! - our peanut gallery always rushes in to supply the nuts! - every rump-nutty idea fares well here! - wanna see my may 6th list of likely rump trojans?
+8 # Edwina 2016-05-28 10:43
Taibi always follows the money, and we learn something about how the system is working. The populist "movements" of both Trump and Sanders are about a recognition by ordinary Americans that we are being left out of the political/econo mic process. Meanwhile, the MSM continues to report as if that process isn't broken. It's all about delegate counts, how will such-and-such event/speech/sc andal affect the candidate's chances -- not the issues Sanders, or even Clinton, are talking about.
+6 # davehaze 2016-05-28 13:05
Clintrumpton! There would be no one to vote for if Sanders is out.
+2 # Keystone999 2016-05-30 09:14
Why can't you use the old Jon Stewart technique and show a split screen with him flip-flopping on everything - he has been all over the place. Who can hurt him more than being confronted with his inconsistency and irrationality>U se science - the recent NOOA study showing that ocean die off will be evident on shore by 2030 - contrasted to his stance on fossil fuel. There is so much stuff to nail him on that He has provided. throw out your light weight ad team and get someone who has been reading for the past 20 years. geez!

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.