Squawk Box (CNBC) had Trump on live this morning for nearly 40 minutes. He was his usual rambling self with no definitive, specific answers to the hosts' questions. But one thing I have noticed is that Trump is willing to go on live with pretty much anyone who requests an interview. And he spends as much time as the station will allow.

On this morning's show, Becky Quick mentioned several times that Clinton has yet to come on their show despite requests stretching back months. She said that Hillary has an open invitation to appear.

I wonder why they are sheltering Clinton. Are they just going to let Trump hang himself and then try to win by default? Up until now, that strategy appears to be working. But where it might fail is if she gets blown out in the debates. And Trump imperiled his rivals in the GOP debates with his unorthodox style. He continues to garner the vast majority of the media coverage and debate on cable news stations.

Trump only does the shows which function as infomercials. He avoids shows which ask tough questions. Hillary Clinton needs to be more accessible. It was one of her failings during the last campaign and they are doing it again this time. It is not going to hurt against Trump as much because he such a flawed candidate.

Trump only does the shows which function as infomercials. He avoids shows which ask tough questions. Hillary Clinton needs to be more accessible. It was one of her failings during the last campaign and they are doing it again this time. It is not going to hurt against Trump as much because he such a flawed candidate.

So, he doubled down this morning that "Barack Hussein Obama" was the founder of ISIS?

More proof he doesn't want to be president.

When they hold him accountable for the evasive answers he stops doing the shows. He boycotted Fox News because of that. He won't do MSNBC anymore because they stopped kissing his ass. As long as he is allowed to ramble he is fine with doing their shows. Once they begin to hold him accountable he stops. THis is the guy that ducked a debate because he didn't like the moderators. When has that ever happened?

I listen to his statements, and I wonder the same thing. Sometimes, I think he just can't articulate what he is trying to say. MANY Republicans think that Obama's pull back strategy in Iraq created the vacuum that allowed ISIS (al qaeda in Irag) to move in. If that is what he is trying to say, then I get it. But who the heck knows.

It is, but when he chooses to phrase it that way, it makes me think he has no interest. He could say that without calling him the "founder" of ISIS.

I listen to his statements, and I wonder the same thing. Sometimes, I think he just can't articulate what he is trying to say. MANY Republicans think that Obama's pull back strategy in Iraq created the vacuum that allowed ISIS (al qaeda in Irag) to move in. If that is what he is trying to say, then I get it. But who the heck knows.

Here's the thing. He's not trying to get your vote or mine. He knows he won't. He's trying to make absolutely sure that Hillbilly Pete in Ashtabula gets his ass out to vote.

My point is that I don't think he's trying to get any votes. I think he's trying to make sure he doesn't win. He's already got Darkside's votes, so - if he's really trying to win - it's a futile effort if he doesn't try to reach someone beyond his current psychotic base.

No, I agree with you there. I just don't think there are enough Darksides in those swing states to win him the election (there were in the primary states with Republicans only, however).

There probably aren't. I would expect with the Supreme Court seats on the line all the pro-choicers will come out strong. Trump's play is to make sure every nutjob votes and hope that there is enough ambivalence toward or disillusionment with Hillary that many of her potential voters just say, "Fuck it, I'm sitting this one out" or vote for Johnson or Stein.

All this does is get Johnson more traction. Maybe not in this election but this could be the turning point for the Libertarian party. Nader and Perot were personalities not a party. Johnson is the opposite... People are voting his ideas not him.

All this does is get Johnson more traction. Maybe not in this election but this could be the turning point for the Libertarian party. Nader and Perot were personalities not a party. Johnson is the opposite... People are voting his ideas not him.

All this does is get Johnson more traction. Maybe not in this election but this could be the turning point for the Libertarian party. Nader and Perot were personalities not a party. Johnson is the opposite... People are voting his ideas not him.

It is, but when he chooses to phrase it that way, it makes me think he has no interest. He could say that without calling him the "founder" of ISIS.