Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[Kromm]

9 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Newsweek has a story up entitled, Ridiculous Stories Behind Trump's Film and TV Cameos. SPOILER ALERT: He's always been a dick.

Please read the email his people (he?) sent to the producers of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. The whole anecdote is fantastic. 

You just know that the moment after this went up, Trumpettes started posting/tweeting/going on talk shows about how Newsweek was just part of "the left wing media bias". I'm sure the charges range from "them only telling the bad stories" to "the people they talked to were Hollywood types, liars..." to "why are they wasting time on this and not on Hillary being a criminal who treasonously deleted emails [my note: that per the subpoena she actually legally WAS allowed to delete because they weren't asked for].

I also didn't miss in that another story of how badly he treated Marla specifically (tossing the script pages and leaving her to clean it up). This is the same woman who Ivanka tells the story about where Marla was running a few minutes late for their private plane to take off and Trump literally left her standing there on the tarmac and had the plane take off without her while she stood there watching.

Also, all these stories from the 80s and 90s support what we've seen now--that Trump's image and pride totally centers around inflating how rich he is (well, that and hitting on extremely young women, like that 19 year old cousin of that kid actress). Actually, as we've seen he inflates the import of everything he does, like how he feels it necessary to invent the idea that the non-speaking cameo he did on Spin City gave it Yooooooge ratings and how he has to brag about that (fake) fact every time he's met Michael J. Fox since then. Is there any surer sign of one of the most extreme cases of Narcissism in the world than that? That the man has built a lie into his life about something SO minor, but has made it enough a part of his identity to brag about it consistently for decades afterward?  I mean that's just SICK.

[Kitty Redstone]

Donald would wither up into a ball of orange goo if the media stopped paying attention to him, which is what I wish they would do.  He thinks they're all conspired against him anyway.  So why continue to give this dangerous yet ridiculous man a national forum?

[ari333]

6 minutes ago, Kitty Redstone said:

Donald would wither up into a ball of orange goo if the media stopped paying attention to him, which is what I wish they would do.  He thinks they're all conspired against him anyway.  So why continue to give this dangerous yet ridiculous man a national forum?

THIS THIS THIS!!!

(But you don't mean this forum, right?)

:)

[Padma]

I see Trump being praised for not yelling through his awful speech this morning. The corrupt media sure sets the bar low for him.  I love how he talks about unifying America and healing our divisions, then describes going to Washington and "setting up a new government of, by and for THE PEOPLE."  Uh, Donald. What are we? You know, the 50%+ of the population who hate your guts and support someone else? 

His "We the People" never includes anyone who disagrees with him, Republican or Democrat, he never talks about reaching out to his critics. It's always "my way or the highway".  And, of course, in addition to the "rigged system", he's now saying Hillary "shouldn't even be allowed to run because of all her 'crimes'." I'm still mad at Chris Wallace (and the others) for not asking him about the Constitution.

Y'all have probably already seen this, but I thought the NY Daily News did an outstanding job taking him down, http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/

[KerleyQ]

13 hours ago, lordonia said:

He has said he would. Trouble is, the Donalds Jr. and Sr. have clearly shown that they haven't the faintest idea what a blind trust is. Slate enumerates what it would really entail. But honestly? I don't believe Trump has ever been involved in making day to day decisions for his businesses. He has zero attention span and hates details.

I read the deposition he gave in the trial where he's suing that chef for pulling out of his new hotel.  He basically says that Ivanka and Don Jr do the negotiating and hammer out all the details and then just show him when he's done.  My immediate thought was that this is a man running on his business acumen, and he's admitting that he doesn't actually do much to run his business.  He's just a figurehead.  (It also lends credence to Kasich's claim that the campaign approached him about being the VP, promising he'd be in charge of everything while Trump will be in charge of "Making America Great Again."  That's basically what he does now.  His kids are in charge of everything, and he promotes the brand.  "Make America Great Again" is simply the new brand.  

For me the bigger issue with his kids running things during his hypothetical presidency is not that he'd be behind the wheel at Trump, but there are two other glaring issues.  The power it imbues in his kids is one.  The company does a lot of out of the country work.  Imagine if you're some local authority in another country, and the children of the President of one of the most powerful countries in the world show up looking for a variance on something, or bidding on some key piece of property to launch a new project.  It's going to be awfully hard for those localities in other countries to ignore that they're negotiating with someone with that kind of power at their backs.  And if he wants to talk "pay to play," how many times will some other country get some kind of consideration or preferential treatment from his administration if they've extended themselves for his company?  The other issue is, of course, government contracts.  How fair would it be to any company to be competing with a company run by the President's children when trying to get a government contract?  Even if they swear that all bids were made anonymously, there's no way to ensure the integrity of that system when the people who run one of the bidding companies are the children of the POTUS.  I know, Don Jr swears "we'd never talk about business."  But, let's be real, the man has no integrity and no shame.  If he can do something to aid his company, he'll do it.  Not to be flip, but one of his kids can't even be assed to pay a buck or two for his beverage at a fast food place, and we expect that he's not going to do everything in his power to jump the line when we're talking millions and billions in company revenue?  

13 hours ago, Advance35 said:

Seriously, I would be worried about quite a few people if (god please forbid) he wins.   Every Clinton (Hill, Bill and for safety sake, Chelsea.   Dear Lord, Run.  Run Fast and Run Hard.

Mark Cuban is in trouble too.   Bloomberg has been taunting and outspoken as well.   The more noise she makes, the more I worry for Gloria Allred.

I've said a number of times recently that I hope that there is an unprecedented level of security around the Clinton family on election night and inauguration day.  Because I have no doubt that some deranged supporter might try something, thinking that they're doing it for him.  (I'm not saying all of his supporters are at that level, but he does have a core segment of his voters who have a cult like devotion to him.  There's no telling how they might react when he loses.)  But you're right in that he, himself, may look for ways to "ruin" the family (among others) in other ways after the loss.  Something tells me that, at minimum, Hillary will spend her term answering questions, nearly daily, about some outlandish thing he's said about her or accused her of.  It would be nice if the media collectively ignored his sore loser antics, but they're not going to be able to resist the ratings of covering his idiocy.  

12 hours ago, Kitty Redstone said:

When he loses, his surrogates will pop right back up like obnoxious weebles.  They'll find other candidates to spin for, or become lobbyists or think tank people, or commentators for one of the many rightwing tv or radio programs.

Yep.  Aren't two of his most prominent ones - Kellyanne and Katrina - former Cruz surrogates?  I know there's evidence of Kellyanne, at least, really putting Trump down when she worked with Cruz, but now she's out there smiling and pretending that Trump is the greatest human being she's ever had the pleasure of meeting.  Of course, the media rolls with it, because there must be some kind of understood thing that they don't bring up their previous work with other candidates once they're with a new one, because it's just part of the business.  (Kind of similar, I guess, to how most voters and media don't buy into using a primary opponent's angles of attack against the candidate once they get the nomination and those prior opponents endorse and, sometimes, campaign for them.  

3 hours ago, DeLurker said:

As Larry Wilmore said "Orange is the new Black".

I sincerely don't think he could get any traction to implement his  authoritarian regime in the event he actually becomes president.  He'd need real military power behind him to get things rolling and I am confident he is not the man they would blindly follow.  It is one thing to support his very vocal Law & Order doctrine, it is another to execute the commands that run contrary to what has been the core principles behind military service.

He does have endorsements and support from some in the military.  I don't think that he'd have a huge problem finding military members who will do his bidding, it if comes to it.  Like any good dictator, he'll figure out early on which members of the military are not only for him, but blindly loyal or ambitious enough to not be bothered by the ethical dilemmas presented by his orders.  Those are the ones he'll surround himself with to carry out those orders.  Once he has some in authority within the military, they'll be likely to order those below them to carry out orders.  Then you hit the point where there's a fracture.  There will be some who respect the authority of those above them to the degree where they won't question any order.  And there will be some who respect that authority, but still hold true to those principles that have been instilled in them, and they won't carry out the orders.  And that is when things will start getting really ugly.  Not only does that cause a potential battle from within, but that conflict weakens us, in general, and makes us ripe for outside aggressors (hi, Vladimir!).  

Obviously, that is all a worst case-scenario, but, it's not outside the realm of possibility.  That is textbook for how dictatorships get and maintain power (and how rebel groups form in response, as well).  It's our ideal to say that our military will not carry out orders that run contrary to their core principles, and we should be able to say that.  However, it's never black and white, especially when one of their core principles is a respect for their superiors and the CIC.  You can't predict how people will react when some of their principles conflict with some of their other principles.  Add in that it's possible that those who are loyal to the dictator will misrepresent the reasoning behind orders, or compartmentalize various portions of a mission so that those carrying it out don't see how what they're doing contributes to a bigger picture they wouldn't support, so those carrying out the orders might not even know that what they're doing goes against their principles until it's too late.  

[potatoradio]

Quote

Serious question, do you (and others if so choose) wish there had been more choices on the Dem side?

Not particularly. Plenty of choice for me anyway:

Clinton: experienced, highly intelligent left-centrist with a high visibility and ability to nudge herself along the spectrum in response to political tides

Sanders: dynamic sitting senator promising much idealism and dramatic changes

O'Malley: Nice man. 

Chaffee: Who? Had to dig. Has a dad in politics and some other stuff. 

Webb: Odd duck. Our mild version of the outlying uncle who brings JuJubee salad to the family picnic, maybe?

One other dude: No idea. 

On the Repub side, and I do try to give all candidates a college try, I saw two camps: tough-talking, souped-up Perots who want to run the country like a CEO (Trump, Fiorina) and the ones with varying degrees of draconian social issue views and pleasant table manners (Jeb!, Rubio, Kasich, Graham) or draconian social issue views presented as religious edicts (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum). And Paul. Anyway, despite the number of candidates, I didn't see a lot of choice. I was kind of interested in Paul's and Graham's foreign policy and sometimes Huckabee can pull off a genuine, humble concern for the poor or the elderly, but... as a social issue and climate change litmus test voter, it was like looking for something resembling a deep dish Chicago pizza at a Cracker Barrel. Not on the menu. OK, won't be eating here despite the multi-page menu.

What I really hate about the Trump/media relationship is how political debate and serious issues have been dumbed down to outrageous sound bites. I didn't watch the third debate. I tuned in to see if anyone, anyone (Bueller? Bueller?) had gotten the talk focused on climate change. Nope. Bad hombres and nasty women and much hand-wringing over Trump's announcement that he'll throw a temper fit if he doesn't win.

That's pathetic, and not entirely on Trump. 

[Padma]

I was a little disappointed that Biden didn't run. But now I've found some "Hillary love" I think it's just as well.  I usually have a Republican I like a bit, but this time--even with 17 candidates--it was hard to find one. I -did- wish Rand Paul had more opportunities to talk, especially in the main debate. Likewise, Lindsay Graham whom I disagree with on most things, but find interesting and knowledgable.  (Replacing Cruz with Graham would have been good. And, frankly, I thought Bush was such a weak debater that I would have personally liked to have seen Paul in his place.)

I don't know if the "main stage" was down to 5 from the beginning--Trump, Rubio, Paul, Graham and Kasich--if the outcome would have been much different. Personally, I think it would have.

Trump speeches need to come with health advisories.  Watching him give his authoritarian "disunity" drivel while evoking the memory of LINCOLN, at GETTYSBURG, was genuinely nauseating.   And, since as always, he was pandering to his base and ignoring the feelings and beliefs of at least half the population, I took his choice of location as more about divisiveness and a possible upcoming ideological "civil war" than about binding up the nation's wounds and bringing people together.

"Trump" in the same breath as "Lincoln" (or even "Millard Fillmore").  Yikes.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Padma

[MulletorHater]

5 hours ago, Darian said:

I agree. And if I hadn't believed there was some truly, deeply wrong with Trump, his treatment of the Khans would have convinced me. Khizr's speech and comments since were, as you say, powerful, but without saying a word Ghazala Khan showed such raw grief and pain that anyone with a modicum of basic humanity would have apologized or at least shut the fuck up. I can't identify the particular pathology that would make one double-down in the face of the Khans words and silence, but Trump's got something very, very wrong in the place most of us have compassion, love, empathy, and shame. 

 

You know, I gave this a lot of thought this morning.  I totally agree that there is something wrong with Drumpf.  I realize that he will keep several mental health professionals and arm chair psychiatrists pretty busy when this horrible election season finally ends.

But, it just occurred to me that personality disorder(s) aside, there are some people who are just no damn good.  I'm serious.  There are some people who are so vile, so evil, so despicable, so scummy, so depraved and rotten inside that they simply defy all the norms of human decency.  Drumpf is a soulless monster with no moral compass whatsoever.  It frightens me that he has another generation of Drumpfs following in his slimy footsteps.  I have no idea how Barron will turn out, but given who his parents are, I don't have a lot expectations.  I am also convinced that the main reason Drumpf started attacking Michelle Obama is because it was killing him that she refused to mention him by name.  

Rachel Maddow mentioned last night the numerous publications that have endorsed Secretary Clinton.  There are even a few that raised the alarm about Drumpf.  I read the very comprehensive New York Daily News editorial, "Bury Trump in a Landslide" before going to bed last night.  I realize that they are probably preaching to the choir, but it is a stark reminder as to why this creature is a danger to our country.  http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/

Hopefully, there will be a thorough self-examination by the political class, voters and the Fourth Estate to understand how someone like this got so close to the White House.

ETA:  I didn't realize Padma already cited the above editorial.  Thanks, Padma!

Edited October 22, 2016 by MulletorHater

[biakbiak]

I knew Joe Biden wasn't going to run (won a lot of money from friends on that and Bernie not winning the nomination). He is great on the stump but he still feels Beau's death so deeply that he couldn't mont a campaign and I think part of him is a little like I dragged Jill into this life maybe we can find a time where I will yell on the front porch while Jill teaches an grades papers if that is what she wants to do or we can both retire and sit on the front porch together and do things for vets, military families and fighting cancer in our spare time!

Back on topic Donald Trump is the first person running for president who I think doesn't give a shit about his children. He is so weirdly divorced from all of them that he can casually say he would date Ivanka and I believe he would be stymied by someone asking him how old any of children are most especially Tiffany and Barron.

Edited October 22, 2016 by biakbiak

[ari333]

Trump truly scares me. Pass the Pepto.

[Advance35]

So his speech in Penn. was basically him VOWING vengeance against his accusers AND certain media outlets, he was willing to name, I've know doubt he has more targets percolating in that toxic bowl he calls a mind.  Oh and of course this crusade will begin AFTER the election.  My god it still bothers me that the monster got this far.

Quote

I've said a number of times recently that I hope that there is an unprecedented level of security around the Clinton family on election night and inauguration day.  Because I have no doubt that some deranged supporter might try something, thinking that they're doing it for him.  (I'm not saying all of his supporters are at that level, but he does have a core segment of his voters who have a cult like devotion to him.  There's no telling how they might react when he loses.)

Someone in my personal life plans to vote for him, I've yelled, scrailed, given the silent treatment, Sigh.  They told me they are really tired of the whole thing.  They think Hillary will win and they said either way everyone is going to need to get on with their lives.  I'm hoping that's how a majority of his supporters bear his (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE) loss.  It's easy to say things online and I'm hoping that's all it is.  Though my friend did say this is not a dictatorship and he can't just do anything.  I'm hoping this means even his partially sane supporters might go "whoa".  (Hope springs eternal).

Quote

Trump speeches need to come with health advisories.  Watching him give his authoritarian "disunity" drivel while evoking the memory of LINCOLN, at GETTYSBURG, was genuinely nauseating.   And, since as always, he was pandering to his base and ignoring the feelings and beliefs of at least half the population, I took his choice of location as more about divisiveness and a possible upcoming ideological "civil war" than about binding up the nation's wounds and bringing people together.

I honestly didn't even have the stomach to watch the whole thing, I kept leaving the room because the man makes me physically ILL.  I'm hoping he doesn't gain traction with voters.   I just want him gone.  GONE!!!!!

I saw Hillary got a few more endorsements (WELCOME TO THE PARTY Late comers) and I notice Oprah did as well, and that's when I noticed she had been very quiet this Election.   Does she still have clout these days??

[HumblePi]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

I was a little disappointed that Biden didn't run. But now I've found some "Hillary love" I think it's just as well.  I usually have a Republican I like a bit, but this time--even with 17 candidates--it was hard to find one. I -did- wish Rand Paul had more opportunities to talk, especially in the main debate. Likewise, Lindsay Graham whom I disagree with on most things, but find interesting and knowledgable.  (Replacing Cruz with Graham would have been good. And, frankly, I thought Bush was such a weak debater that I would have personally liked to have seen Paul in his place.)

I don't know if the "main stage" was down to 5 from the beginning--Trump, Rubio, Paul, Graham and Kasich--if the outcome would have been much different. Personally, I think it would have.

Trump speeches need to come with health advisories.  Watching him give his authoritarian "disunity" drivel while evoking the memory of LINCOLN, at GETTYSBURG, was genuinely nauseating.   And, since as always, he was pandering to his base and ignoring the feelings and beliefs of at least half the population, I took his choice of location as more about divisiveness and a possible upcoming ideological "civil war" than about binding up the nation's wounds and bringing people together.

"Trump" in the same breath as "Lincoln" (or even "Millard Fillmore").  Yikes.

If someone held a gun to my head and I had to choose one Republican candidate to run, I'd have to say either John Kasich or Rand Paul. They are probably the only two that refused to engage in the dirty tactics that Trump instigated among the others.

Regarding Abraham Lincoln, I can't even name the two men together in one sentence. I have been a student of Civil War history for most of my life. I have been to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania just to be able to stand on the same ground where Lincoln gave one of the greatest speeches every given in American history. To have Donald Trump evoke the name of Lincoln as a comparison to himself is incomprehensible and in my opinion, unforgivable.

Edited October 22, 2016 by HumblePi

[DeLurker]

4 hours ago, Darian said:

Russia is really interested in our  presidential election. So far, the Russian consulate asked to monitor the election in three states (OK, LA, TX). 

Oh snap!  That is not a joke!

They were talking about the Texas offer on NPR and I seriously thought they were just having fun (I think it was this morning).

[MulletorHater]

I'm trying to figure out what Americans will sign up to build this mythical wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  And, who would be fool enough to believe that he would actually pay them for building it?  I don't even know what to say about the fools at that rally who clapped at his threats to retaliate against his accusers.

[HumblePi]

9 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

I'm trying to figure out what Americans will sign up to build this mythical wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  And, who would be fool enough to believe that he would actually pay them for building it?  I don't even know what to say about the fools at that rally who clapped at his threats to retaliate against his accusers.

What people don't understand is that no wall would stop illegal immigration and/or drugs crossing through the US-Mexico border. I would like someone to be honest enough to do an expose' about the corruption that exists along the US/Mexico border. Reporters Melissa del Bosque and Patrick Michels of the Texas Observer chronicled various instances of misbehavior by agents at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including purchasing weapons for criminal groups, abusing confidential informants, and taking bribes to allow human smugglers and drug traffickers to cross the US-Mexico border. The problems with drugs entering quite freely into the US are simply not entirely the fault of smugglers passing illegally through soft borders, they are in fact being aided and assisted by one of the US's largest enforcement agency, the US Customs and Border Protection.  http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/mexico-cartels-us-border-patrol-corruption

Edited October 22, 2016 by HumblePi

[DeLurker]

11 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

I'm trying to figure out what Americans will sign up to build this mythical wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  

Clearly we will hire undocumented immigrants to do such work!

[DollEyes]

  Once again, Trump has gone off the rails bigly. His "First 100 Days" agenda (not that he'll ever get elected, Heaven/voters willing), is, like Trump himself, 20 pounds of shit in a five-pound bag. Trump's willingness to only accept the election results "if [he] wins" is batshit crazy, even for him. Trump is going down in flames and he knows it. Trump's performances at the last debate and at the Al Smith dinner are perfect metaphors for his campaign- starts off bad, gets worse and implodes at the end. Trump's saying that the only legitimate Presidential victory would be his own isn't just dumb, it's dangerous. Based on what I've seen/heard, many of Trump's supporters are just as nuts as he is. There's an episode of The Circus, Showtime's real-time docuseries about the 2016 Presidential election with co-hosts Mark Halperin, John Heilmann and Mark McKinnon. In the most recent episode, Halperin interviewed male and female Trump suporters. The male ones said things like "[Trump's] like the rest of us-he likes guns, he likes women, he's got the power. Why wouldn't he take a little advantage?" Then there's the female Trumpers, who spew such gems like "If women don't want to be objectified, then they shouldn't wear makeup" and "In the back of our minds, we all want to be objectified a little bit." Objectified is one thing; assaulted is another. As for the genius who defended Trump's "taking advantage," would he still feel that way if Trump attacked someone he loves? I doubt it. 

  Hillary's performance at the Al Smith dinner, while not perfect, was still better than Trump's, which isn't that hard to do. Hillary was mature, poised and sane-three words that will never apply to Trump. There are three things that Trump hates: losing, rejection and using his own words against him,which Hillary has done to spectacular effect throughout the campaign.  The "Nasty Women" meme is just the latest example.  The worse Trump looks, the better Hillary looks. 

Comparing Trump to Abraham Lincoln is like comparing sirloin to Spam-which, come to think of it, is an insult to Spam. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by DollEyes

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, Kitty Redstone said:

Donald would wither up into a ball of orange goo if the media stopped paying attention to him, which is what I wish they would do.  He thinks they're all conspired against him anyway.  So why continue to give this dangerous yet ridiculous man a national forum?

Nah. It would be sickly pink goo (the color underneath), with an orange glaze on top.

[Kromm]

41 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

I'm trying to figure out what Americans will sign up to build this mythical wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  And, who would be fool enough to believe that he would actually pay them for building it?  I don't even know what to say about the fools at that rally who clapped at his threats to retaliate against his accusers.

Literally every time Trump mentioned his wall in speeches over the first 6 months or so, his "estimate" of the cost went up by a few billion each time. But even his highest estimates were WAY low.

Online I've seen the laughable suggestion that if Mexico otherwise couldn't be "forced" to pay, that "the money seized from drug cartels would pay for it". Now think about that statement a bit. That money is ALREADY seized and re-purposed.  So that "plan" seems to bank on The Wall being like the Magic Beans that Jack threw out the window which grew into a huge beanstalk overnight. That somehow the Cartel seized drug money would magically multiply... because less drugs are getting through your Wall?  Does this even BEGIN to make sense?

Also, from an Engineering standpoint the wall is bullshit. There are so many places where such a structure couldn't safely be built.

And finally there's the little problem that people actually own the land that would be needed for this Wall. So Mr. Small Government (I'm being ironic here) would have to order the land of many thousands of people seized by the government to build this shit on.

[candall]

I've been following Hillary for decades, since reading a New Yorker(?) article about the First Lady of Arkansas.  The article discussed how this woman, who had already booked some extraordinary achievements, had startled her friends and colleagues by veering off her own stellar career path in Washington to marry and support an affable (but less brilliant) political hopeful in Arkansas.  But, the article continued, she was doing remarkable things there as well [insert a dozen pages of impressive activity.]   Ha, I remember she was not happy that her new home base expected her to change her last name when she married Bill.

So I've been keeping close tabs on Hillary for a long, long time and I was thrilled when her accomplishments and credentials kept accruing, she kept advancing, and, when the time came, it looked like her gender wasn't going to cause her to be snuffed out before she reached the highest office.

 

And then, Trump.  I think there are some positive points that have been gained from Trump's campaign, which we've talked about here:  the necessity of taking a hard look at media responsibility, increased voter registration, the GOP separating into more closely defined ideological segments, the rare chance to see a whole batch of politicos scramble so we can see which ones are brave and which ones will spew gibberish to save their own asses, recognition that the future is not formed by the person in the oval office as much as by twelve people on the bench.  Etc.

I think it's particularly good that many people woke up, for the first time, to the fact that being grabbed, groped, kissed, shoulder-massaged, head-patted, tickle-attacked or backed up against a wall are experiences most women have in common, and which men do not.

 

But still, my main response is that I am STUNNED, every single day, that Hillary has to battle so hard to stay ahead of this . . . nightmare cartoon figure.  It seems evident that even a slightly more reasonable opponent would have resulted in a candidate less qualified, imo, than HRC defeating her.  (I've been dreading the third Bush for years.)

So.  As long as we keep inching forward the direction we seem to be headed and Hillary finally takes office--shattering that particular glass ceiling, guaranteeing the Supreme Court won't plunge us back into the 1950's, allowing the missile commanders to breathe again, picking up the universal healthcare baton, on and on and on--and if this was the only path we had to get there, then . . . . . . okay, for me, Trump has served his purpose.

[Padma]

2 hours ago, KerleyQ said:

...For me the bigger issue with his kids running things during his hypothetical presidency is not that he'd be behind the wheel at Trump, but there are two other glaring issues.  The power it imbues in his kids is one.  The company does a lot of out of the country work.  Imagine if you're some local authority in another country, and the children of the President of one of the most powerful countries in the world show up looking for a variance on something, or bidding on some key piece of property to launch a new project.  It's going to be awfully hard for those localities in other countries to ignore that they're negotiating with someone with that kind of power at their backs.  And if he wants to talk "pay to play," how many times will some other country get some kind of consideration or preferential treatment from his administration if they've extended themselves for his company?  The other issue is, of course, government contracts.  How fair would it be to any company to be competing with a company run by the President's children when trying to get a government contract?  

 

That reminds me. Don Jr was recently in India desperately trying to close a deal with the government and not getting anywhere. The other day, out of the blue, Trump started babbling about India--how great our relationship would be, yaddayadda.  I didn't think about it at the time, but it's completely possible that the two are interconnected. There's no doubt whatsoever that he would use his status as president to enrich himself and expand his business around the world. And who, really, could turn down veiled threats from the President of the United States who wants you to give him tax advantages, property deals, etc. in your country?

The greatest failing to me in this campaign, has been the unwillingness of cable news to focus on the danger of Trump's business entanglements here and abroad--with shady partners, foreign lenders, compromising business deals, you name it--if he were president. (Eichenwald and Farenthold have done great work, but not enough people read it.) And--related to that--is the CRUCIAL fact that he refuses to be transparent about any of his compromising finances--no tax returns, no business partner disclosures...nothing at all. Disgraceful. And yet he has the gall, as this morning, to talk about how he "values transparency".  

1 hour ago, MulletorHater said:

You know, I gave this a lot of thought this morning.  I totally agree that there is something wrong with Drumpf.  I realize that he will keep several mental health professionals and arm chair psychiatrists pretty busy when this horrible election season finally ends.

But, it just occurred to me that personality disorder(s) aside, there are some people who are just no damn good.  I'm serious.  There are some people who are so vile, so evil, so despicable, so scummy, so depraved and rotten inside that they simply defy all the norms of human decency.  Drumpf is a soulless monster with no moral compass whatsoever.  It frightens me that he has another generation of Drumpfs following in his slimy footsteps.  I have no idea how Barron will turn out, but given who his parents are, I don't have a lot expectations.  I am also convinced that the main reason Drumpf started attacking Michelle Obama is because it was killing him that she refused to mention him by name.  

Rachel Maddow mentioned last night the numerous publications that have endorsed Secretary Clinton.  There are even a few that raised the alarm about Drumpf.  I read the very comprehensive New York Daily News editorial, "Bury Trump in a Landslide" before going to bed last night.  I realize that they are probably preaching to the choir, but it is a stark reminder as to why this creature is a danger to our country.  http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/

Hopefully, there will be a thorough self-examination by the political class, voters and the Fourth Estate to understand how someone like this got so close to the White House.

ETA:  I didn't realize Padma already cited the above editorial.  Thanks, Padma!

Glad you posted that editorial too and liked it! If we could have sigs around here, it would be mine!

And I agree that Trump actually has a mental problem. (He also refuses to ever see a psychologist claiming he "doesn't have the need or the time." A psychologist friend of mine says it's very difficult to treat narcissists anyway--and he's probably at the far end of some pretty scary spectrums of disorder. I don't think co-author Tony Schwartz was speaking casually when he actually called Trump a "sociopath".  Watching him so brazenly LIE to those people this morning--calling his accusers "liars" (when everything they said is so obviously true)--does confirm, yes, that he's a "soulless monster", the perfect term. He knows they're telling the truth, but would love nothing more than to destroy their reputations and credibility and make their lives a living Hell.

It was kind of interesting though that he's suing them "after" the election. You mean, Donald, as president? Does anyone ever point out he's going to be in court so much?  I would have recommended his first hundred days look like this:

Trump University class action fraud law suit--San Diego
Trump University fraud trial -- San Diego
Trump University fraud trial by the Attorney General of NY -- New York
rape trial (13 year old girl)
then ...
10 lawsuits against the women who accuse him of sexual assault
and of course, he's threatened a libel suit against the New York Times

Isn't he much too busy in court to build a wall, deport 2 million undocumented workers, lower corporate tax from 35 to 15%, ...

If (God help us, seriously) he actually won, maybe that would be the solution--for people to keep suing him so he would stay the heck away from Washington.

[HumblePi]

One talking point which I haven't seen mentioned here, maybe because it is such a personal and sensitive topic is the position that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have on abortion. I am a Catholic and believe in the right to life except when the mother's life is in jeopardy. But, I am also cognizant of the fact that we don't all have the same beliefs and I respect the fact that women are entitled to make their own decisions.

At the third and final debate, Donald Trump made a statement that for his supporters was gasp-worthy, inflammatory and totally untrue. "If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb..."  No, this is a lie. Late-term abortions don't 'rip' babies out of wombs. There is no such thing as a ninth month abortion. Those who seek late-term abortions are seeking them before a pregnancy reaches full term but often and unfortunately after they have discovered in the second or third trimester some problem with the fetus or danger to the mother. He appears not to realize that the term for that, and it’s done considerably less violently, is a Cesarean section, a common, safe procedure by which about a third of women deliver their babies every year. In other words, Trump described how more than a million women every year give birth. It’s quite legal, and generally a cause for celebration.

Despite public misconception, abortions performed after 20 weeks only make up about 1% of total abortions (the vast majority are within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, also called the first trimester) .Late term abortions are not “used as birth control,” despite this illogical cultural myth that they are. Many late term abortions occur for WANTED pregnancies and performed due to either fetal anomalies or risks to the health of the patient.

El Salvador is a country where 51% of the population are Roman Catholics, and 33% are Protestant. It is a place where 9-year-old girls impregnated by rape are forced to bear children, where women have no choice but to continue potentially deadly ectopic pregnancies, where women who have miscarriages are routinely accused of trying to abort their fetuses and imprisoned for murder if found guilty. This is what happens when religion trumps women's choices, women's health and women's lives — in El Salvador, in Ireland and increasingly in the United States, thanks to a Supreme Court that puts an employer's religious beliefs above a female employee's right to contraception, and relentless state efforts to roll back abortion rights You wonder if what has happened in El Salvador and Ireland could happen here? In some ways, it already has and if Donald Trump gets his way and overturns Roe v Wade, we will return to the way we were before women had any say at all about their own bodies.

I am all in favor of organized religion, whatever that religion may be, but there is a clear separation of church and state clause in our Constitution.

[Kromm]

3 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

At the third and final debate, Donald Trump made a statement that for his supporters was gasp-worthy, inflammatory and totally untrue. "If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb..."  No, this is a lie. Late-term abortions don't 'rip' babies out of wombs. There is no such thing as a ninth month abortion. Those who seek late-term abortions are seeking them before a pregnancy reaches full term but often and unfortunately after they have discovered in the second or third trimester some problem with the fetus or danger to the mother. He appears not to realize that the term for that, and it’s done considerably less violently, is a Cesarean section, a common, safe procedure by which about a third of women deliver their babies every year. In other words, Trump described how more than a million women every year give birth. It’s quite legal, and generally a cause for celebration.

Trump genuinely doesn't care about the truth. Whatever is passed to him, or whatever he sees or hears which sounds most inflammatory and most likely to send his army into frothy rage, is what comes out of his mouth. When people correct him, he targets that as "bias".  So now you are inherently on his shit list/enemies list. Doesn't that feel good?  

[NewDigs]

30 minutes ago, Kitty Redstone said:

Don't worry!  These people would have existed regardless.  Sure, they'll grumble and complain but that's ok - they'll go back to their lives soon enough and may even come to realize that Donald ramped up their fears (about voting, about Hillary) in order to stroke his own ego. 

I hope you're right. But he's inflamed more passions than the rigged-elections one. And I don't remember the Tea Partiers going quietly home and if they did many seem to have chosen to fly the Don't-tread-on-me banners etc. etc. and become more active. And they managed to get a few voted in and created an even more divisive gov't. 

There are reports of increased bullying of minorities in schools and elsewhere because of his inflammatory rhetoric. I worry he's given some of his more radical followers' beliefs new strength.

Compromise is not a word they seem to recognize.

Edited October 22, 2016 by NewDigs

[film noire]

1 hour ago, Advance35 said:

 

I saw Hillary got a few more endorsements (WELCOME TO THE PARTY Late comers) and I notice Oprah did as well, and that's when I noticed she had been very quiet this Election.   Does she still have clout these days??

She endorsed HRC back in June (when Donald floated Oprah as his running mate, asshole that he is ). Her recent comment was to undecideds (““There really is no choice people, all the people who sit around saying they can't decide, here’s what I want to say: I hear these conversations all the time where people say, ‘I just don’t know if I like her’. She’s not coming over your house, you don’t have to like her. Do you like this country? You better get out there and vote ...Do you like freedom and liberty? Do you like democracy or do you want a demagogue? Ok, there you go.")  

[HumblePi]

20 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Trump genuinely doesn't care about the truth. Whatever is passed to him, or whatever he sees or hears which sounds most inflammatory and most likely to send his army into frothy rage, is what comes out of his mouth. When people correct him, he targets that as "bias".  So now you are inherently on his shit list/enemies list. Doesn't that feel good?  

Oh Hell yeah, it's my honor.

[ariel]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, Giant Misfit said:

 

 

 

So, it's not without precedent that candidates aren't invited/don't participate due to conflicts of ideology. That being said, most all Democratic candidates are always pro-choice so that any one of them gets to sit there is kind of baffling to me.   

Many Republican candidates are pro death penalty.  I find that baffling that they get to "sit there".

[Kitty Redstone]

36 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

I hope you're right. But he's inflamed more passions than the rigged-elections one. And I don't remember the Tea Partiers going quietly home and if they did many seem to have chosen to fly the Don't-tread-on-me banners etc. etc. and become more active. And they managed to get a few voted in and created an even more divisive gov't. 

There are reports of increased bullying of minorities in schools and elsewhere because of his inflammatory rhetoric. I worry he's given some of his more radical followers' beliefs new strength.

Compromise is not a word they seem to recognize.

Oh I agree.  I just think some of them will get so tired of being angry that they'll give it up and move on.  The ones who thrive on anger and resentment and dark conspiracy theories will rant from their caves no matter what, and they aren't worth our time.*  The tea party people are interesting in that I don't think a single one of them was sincere.  The ones who made it to office will either fail from ineptitude or be assimilated in Washington (or their state capitals) and become part of the problem they said they wanted to solve. 

It saddens but does not surprise me that bullying of minorities is on the rise.  The best response is for good people to stand up to them, and tell them that it's not acceptable and their behavior won't be tolerated.  If this had to come up at all, then let's turn it into a opportunity to become better as individuals and as a society.

*An MSNBC reporter just interviewed an average-looking couple at a Donald rally, and the woman started spouting from Infowars and the man was railing at Obama for not attending some D-Day thing and America not being exceptional.  These are unreasonable people, and even under their Il Duce Trump they would be incensed and paranoid. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by Kitty Redstone
spelling

[Padma]

3 minutes ago, Kitty Redstone said:

...*An MSNBC reporter just interviewed an average-looking couple at a Donald rally, and the woman started spouting from Infowars and the man was railing at Obama for not attending some D-Day thing and America not being exceptional.  These are unreasonable people, and even under their Il Duce Trump they would be incensed and paranoid. 

I had that experience at a rally, too. This nice grandmotherly woman, who, engaged in conversation, started spouting right-wing racist garbage as if she was saying, "Hmm. Looks like rain."

The worst part is that they see themselves in Trump and they're right. He has far more money and social status but intellectually, he's stunted--apparently berefit of critical thinking skills--and emotionally he's a bigot who loves InfoWars, too, just like some of his hard-core believers. He's too selfish to be interested much in religion now, but if you took away all his money and dropped him in small town America, he'd be the loud mouth racist unwilling to shut up or listen to anyone else down at the local bar.  As he showed at the Al Smith dinner, even when he's wearing a tux, he's uncouth.  It's probably a very, very good thing that a man with his anger management issues (and problems not assaulting women) doesn't drink.

[Kitty Redstone]

I agree with that assessment.  He's too arrogant to understand that they're even more irrational than he is, and will turn on him in a heartbeat when a different conspiracy becomes the new narrative.

[needschocolate]

I like to think that some day in the future there will be documentaries about this crazy election and they will interview some of the hardcore trumpsters (I prefer that term because it rhymes with dumpster and they both are full of garbage).  They will show footage of them at rallies talking about revolutions and revolts and the second amendment, then the narrator will say that nothing ever happened.  Then come the talking heads and voice-overs from the trumpsters blaming each other for their great revolution never getting off the ground, because they will always be looking for someone to blame.

2 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

I'm trying to figure out what Americans will sign up to build this mythical wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  And, who would be fool enough to believe that he would actually pay them for building it?  I don't even know what to say about the fools at that rally who clapped at his threats to retaliate against his accusers.

He is not going to pay them, remember? Mexico will  pay them.  At the end of the first pay period, the people in charge will tell them to go to the other side of the wall under construction and ask the Mexicans for their check.  They they will be reminded that they will have to pay tax on the wages because only the very rich are allowed not to pay taxes. And that will be the end of the wall.  

1 hour ago, candall said:

I've been following Hillary for decades, since reading a New Yorker(?) article about the First Lady of Arkansas. 

I wouldn't use the term "follow" but I have seen Trump appear on my TV for decades - long before Apprentice - and I can, in all honesty, say that I never liked the guy.  

[Advance35]

Steele your stomach

Supposedly he's actually gaining  in the polls.  Other than America gaining it's first Dictator I really hate the impact this has had on me personally.  The people I know who say they are going to vote for Trump are people I've thought very well of in the past and in all honesty, I don't anymore.  They've flat out said politics isn't going to effect our friendships and in all honesty, if he wins, it will.   The fact that he's closed some of the gap makes me nauseous.

His vow to kill the merger between AT&T and Time Warner?????? Hmmm I wonder if either of those owners are one of his "Top 5".  Or is this to help Brannon's hate site?  This is a man that will do anything "I could shoot someone in the middle of Time Square" and I have to wonder if checks and balances would work on him.   I can't even believe I'm in America thinking like this.

Everyone please vote even if it appears like he will lose don't get complacent.   There is so much at stake.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Advance35

[Landsnark]

A porn actress has come forward claiming Trump groped her against her consent. 
Because of course.
Bet ya he doesn't lose 1 evangelical vote.  #'Murica!

[Kromm]

10 minutes ago, Landsnark said:

A porn actress has come forward claiming Trump groped her against her consent. 
Because of course.
Bet ya he doesn't lose 1 evangelical vote.  #'Murica!

This one, yes?

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/jessica-drake-porn-star-donald-trump-accuser-adult-film-industry-wicked-pictures-photos-gloria-allred-democrat-hillary-clinton-sexual-assault-video-press-conference/

And he allegedly had an affair with a different porn star.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/donald-trump-and-stormy-daniels-738920

 

 

Notice these are linked. Trump is dressed identically, so the events seemingly happened at the same golf tournament.

Lets see if the media picks up on what I found myself (the two different porn-stories, the affair and the groping) which center around the same golf tournament.

[HumblePi]

                                                               "The Wall" and why it's a pipe-dream

These are some logical reasons that this harebrained idea will never and should never come to fruition because even if the wall could be built, it would be a monument to the isolationism and nativism Donald Trump espouses, and it would never justify the expense, it is not a solution to our nation’s immigration problems.

The border runs 1,989 miles, and every year, no fewer than 350 million people cross it, legally! There are 35 border cities, with 45 crossing points and 330 ports of entry.

Logistically speaking, building a wall is essentially impossible since the border runs through four American states: California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The border is a highly diverse terrain, from ocean waters (the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico) to urban areas dominated by arid deserts. Two major rivers, the Colorado and Rio Grande, cross the border from the U.S. to Mexico that also have farmlands, deltas and rugged mountain areas.

Designing and building a “beautiful and massive” wall on this complex terrain would be a major engineering challenge. Trump says his wall will have “a big, beautiful door” so the “good ones” can come back in, but how will that door handle the 350 million people who cross the border each year, many doing it daily?

There are already 670 miles of high steel fencing Republicans spent $2.4 billion on to keep illegal immigrants out of the U.S. Even more difficult would be acquiring the necessary privately owned real estate (with widely unpopular eminent domain proceedings requiring years of litigation).

Much of the border runs through the public lands held by national parks, yet with 84 percent of Democrats opposed to a wall, it is not likely Congress would approve this ecological, environmental and political disruption of prime American wilderness, the home to countless endangered and protected species.

Trump, of course, brushes aside all these "trivial problems", and he resists being pinned down with specifics. The estimated the cost would be more like $25 billion. And if all that was even possible, any person that wishes to enter the US illegally could do so by flying over it with the fleet of airplanes the drug lords have at their disposal, by tunneling under the wall as it has been done many times along our borders, or simply by crossing directly through one of our border crossings with the assistance of border guards that have been bought.

[Keepitmoving]

I think the latest accuser is laying a case for a prostitution ring at his golf courses. One reporter asked why would any employees from this Wicked adult films company be at a golf course plus the offer of 10K. ...That's when my ears perked up, plus she claimed she wasn't the only one from the company to be at the course. Yeah, I think that's where they're trying to go.  

If nothing else, they're hoping Trump continues to lose his shit and just call this accuser a c**t, w***e, trash...at his next rally. 

If he can get up and imply that some of the women aren't attractive enough for him to assault . I can't imagine what he'll try to imply about a woman who works in the adult film industry. This should be good. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[Kromm]

1 minute ago, HumblePi said:

                                                               "The Wall" and why it's a pipe-dream

These are some logical reasons that this harebrained idea will never and should never come to fruition because even if the wall could be built, it would be a monument to the isolationism and nativism Donald Trump espouses, and it would never justify the expense, it is not a solution to our nation’s immigration problems.

The border runs 1,989 miles, and every year, no fewer than 350 million people cross it, legally! There are 35 border cities, with 45 crossing points and 330 ports of entry.

Logistically speaking, building a wall is essentially impossible since the border runs through four American states: California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The border is a highly diverse terrain, from ocean waters (the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico) to urban areas dominated by arid deserts. Two major rivers, the Colorado and Rio Grande, cross the border from the U.S. to Mexico that also have farmlands, deltas and rugged mountain areas.

Designing and building a “beautiful and massive” wall on this complex terrain would be a major engineering challenge. Trump says his wall will have “a big, beautiful door” so the “good ones” can come back in, but how will that door handle the 350 million people who cross the border each year, many doing it daily?

There are already 670 miles of high steel fencing Republicans spent $2.4 billion on to keep illegal immigrants out of the U.S. Even more difficult would be acquiring the necessary privately owned real estate (with widely unpopular eminent domain proceedings requiring years of litigation).

Much of the border runs through the public lands held by national parks, yet with 84 percent of Democrats opposed to a wall, it is not likely Congress would approve this ecological, environmental and political disruption of prime American wilderness, the home to countless endangered and protected species.

Trump, of course, brushes aside all these "trivial problems", and he resists being pinned down with specifics. The estimated the cost would be more like $25 billion. And if all that was even possible, any person that wishes to enter the US illegally could do so by flying over it with the fleet of airplanes the drug lords have at their disposal, by tunneling under the wall as it has been done many times along our borders, or simply by crossing directly through one of our border crossings with the assistance of border guards that have been bought.

I didn't think about the national parks, but even beyond that it would be good to shore up this case by getting an estimate of how MUCH private land that exactly is (that would have to be seized by the government). That's the thing that should reverbrate with the most people... Mr. Small Government ordering land seized from hundreds (or likely thousands) of private landowners.

Because you know.... make sure you don't take their guns, so they can protect their land... but simply take their land away INSTEAD (and I bet you'd be facing some of those privately held guns to force some of that!)

Not that anyone with working brain functions should think this case NEEDS shoring up. Anyone with a three digit IQ, at the very least, should be able to draw out the contradiction between espousing a belief that the government is excessive, and wanting it to steal land from countless people (even before we get into the national parks--and note that national parks, despite being maintained by the "gubmint" are actually the rare government service a lot of Republicans LIKE). 

For the life of me I also can't understand how even if people fool themselves into thinking Harry Potter (or would it be Newt Scaramander now?) is going to cast a spell over the Mexican government to get them to pay for an unwanted wall that would cost a goodly percentage of their entire GNP, that they also are magically unaware of the monstrous engineering, staffing and maintenance costs. Then again good ol' Potter/Scaramander will also have to cast a spell another spell to magically multiply our Immigration officer staffing by about a factor of 100 (and then pay them) to be able to capture, detain and evict the people Trump says need to be evicted along with that Wall going up.

Stupid. Effing stupid. 

[Kromm]

15 minutes ago, Keepitmoving said:

I think the latest accuser is laying a case for a prostitution ring at his golf courses. One reporter asked why would any employees from this Wicked adult films company be at a golf course plus the offer of 10K. ...That's when my ears perked up, plus she claimed she wasn't the only one from the company to be at the course. Yeah, I think that's where they're trying to go.  

If nothing else, they're hoping Trump continues to lose his shit and just call this accuser a c**t, w***e, trash...at his next rally. 

If he can get up and imply that some of the women aren't attractive enough for him to assault . I can't imagine what he'll try to imply about a woman who works in the adult film industry. This should be good. 

But even without that, no matter what that "party weekend" in theory should shatter any claims he's all "loooker room tuk" as Melania says, because even if he somehow got "forgiven" for groping a woman who's in a sex-related industry, he then turned around and (allegedly) stuck Little Donald inside another woman there, showing that even if we accept it all as consensual, this is still an adulterer. It's too bad there isn't another debate, because then someone would have been able to ask him outright if he believes in the sanctity of marriage or not. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by Kromm

[mustbekarma]

6 hours ago, needschocolate said:

I wonder how many hard core Trump supporters there really are.

I swear, I think they all live in my small Northwestern Ohio town. I work with one lady who worships the ground he walks on. I refuse to even discuss him.  One of my best friends from high school adores Trump and is always posting Breitbart type stuff about him and Hillary. I've become quite adept at the Hide Post feature on Facebook.

3 hours ago, HumblePi said:

If someone held a gun to my head and I had to choose one Republican candidate to run, I'd have to say either John Kasich or Rand Paul. They are probably the only two that refused to engage in the dirty tactics that Trump instigated among the others.

I have a choice between getting shot in the head or voting for a Republican.  In either instance, the decision is a no brainer.

[HumblePi]

11 minutes ago, Kromm said:

I didn't think about the national parks, but even beyond that it would be good to shore up this case by getting an estimate of how MUCH private land that exactly is (that would have to be seized by the government). That's the thing that should reverbrate with the most people... Mr. Small Government ordering land seized from hundreds (or likely thousands) of private landowners.

Because you know.... make sure you don't take their guns, so they can protect their land... but simply take their land away INSTEAD (and I bet you'd be facing some of those privately held guns to force some of that!)

Not that anyone with working brain functions should think this case NEEDS shoring up. Anyone with a three digit IQ, at the very least, should be able to draw out the contradiction between espousing a belief that the government is excessive, and wanting it to steal land from countless people (even before we get into the national parks--and note that national parks, despite being maintained by the "gubmint" are actually the rare government service a lot of Republicans LIKE). 

For the life of me I also can't understand how even if people fool themselves into thinking Harry Potter (or would it be Newt Scaramander now?) is going to cast a spell over the Mexican government to get them to pay for an unwanted wall that would cost a goodly percentage of their entire GNP, that they also are magically unaware of the monstrous engineering, staffing and maintenance costs. Then again good ol' Potter/Scaramander will also have to cast a spell another spell to magically multiply our Immigration officer staffing by about a factor of 100 (and then pay them) to be able to capture, detain and evict the people Trump says need to be evicted along with that Wall going up.

Stupid. Effing stupid. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by HumblePi

[random chance]

44 minutes ago, Advance35 said:

I really hate the impact this has had on me personally.  The people I know who say they are going to vote for Trump are people I've thought very well of in the past and in all honesty, I don't anymore.  They've flat out said politics isn't going to effect our friendships and in all honesty, if he wins, it will.  

Same here. This one is different. It's not a disagreement about policies or philosophies or what direction we should go in, it's regular people vs. a cult.

As for the new woman who has come forward ... I don't think a hundred women would shift his culties, and a porn star will be dismissed with "asking for it." But if anyone had a reasonable claim that he was gay or a Muslim, now that might peel them off.

[AimingforYoko]

3 hours ago, DollEyes said:

Hillary's performance at the Al Smith dinner, while not perfect, was still better than Trump's, which isn't that hard to do. Hillary was mature, poised and sane-three words that will never apply to Trump. There are three things that Trump hates: losing, rejection and using his own words against him,which Hillary has done to spectacular effect throughout the campaign.  The "Nasty Women" meme is just the latest example.  The worse Trump looks, the better Hillary looks. 

I loved Chuck Todd's line, "I didn't know it was possible for a candidate to lose the Al Smith dinner."

[biakbiak]

David French's article about the Internet abuse of Trump fanatics and the alt-right  is a must read and revolting that this is where we are today.

[ClareWalks]

58 minutes ago, Landsnark said:

A porn actress has come forward claiming Trump groped her against her consent. 
Because of course.
Bet ya he doesn't lose 1 evangelical vote.  #'Murica!

Oh, of course not! She's a porn actress, therefore she is a ruined woman and a whore and deserved it! <TrumpsterLogic>

[mustbekarma]

6 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

David French's article about the Internet abuse of Trump fanatics and the alt-right  is a must read and revolting that this is where we are today.

I read that, and it makes me sick to my stomach. That makes me ready to break my no politics rule and share it on Facebook.

[ClareWalks]

And you know what's fuckin' cracked about it? The people in that article...the people who make death threats about children and stalk someone over a goddamn tweet...they are MORTALLY OFFENDED that Hillary referred to them as "deplorable." If the fuckin' shoe fits, wear it.

[Kromm]

And the slut shaming has already started. I was on another board and someone posted: "So another allegation from 10 years ago - what has she been doing in the meantime? She surely cant have been keeping quiet because she was afraid he would drag her name though the mud?"  

You know. Because she's a porn star (ergo: untrustworthy and/or asking for it.

I'm sure Twitter is 1000 times worse.

I really do hope someone tracks down Stormy Daniels and gets HER to talk. It would be direct corroboration for Jessica Drake's claims about how handsy the (even then married) Trump is, even if Daniels herself seemingly followed it up with becoming Trump's willing fuck-buddy for a while (the Smoking Gun piece says Trump invited her to Trump functions for many months afterward).  

[Padma]

Consensual sex with a porn star? His base will love it--how macho. (And they'll easily discredit the other one, because how could you molest someone who is a sex worker, right?) There's no way to get through to these people. They ARE a cult.   I truly believe that if, on Nov 9, he announced, "I have special Trump pills available throughout the country that will let us all peacefully protest this corrupt victory of Hillary Clinton and have our deaths make a statement that history--and our great country--will remember" I believe he would have takers. Maybe not in the millions, but at least in the thousands.  People are crazy about him, literally.

I thought the former Apprentice contestant who met him for dinner--and wound up having him grope her in the hotel room, then insisted on the promised dinner, "and got to split a club sandwich" said a lot about Trump's style. 

As did Graydon Carter who asked him to the WHCD as his guest and seated him with a high-end model because "I thought she would find him entertaining".  After a time with Trump analyzing the physical "traits" of all the women in the room to her, she ran screaming to Carter's table begging to be seated with someone else. "I've never met such a rude and vulgar man."  And his supporters really want to say, "That's our president!"

[MulletorHater]

50 minutes ago, mustbekarma said:

I read that, and it makes me sick to my stomach. That makes me ready to break my no politics rule and share it on Facebook.

One of my dear friends, a Conservative NeverTrumper, sent this to me earlier.  My initial reaction was sadness and then a blind rage at what this tangerine sociopath has wrought.

What the hell kind of animals are these?  

[ari333]

This came to mind, to quote Big Bang...

Howard to Sheldon: you were acting like an obnoxious, giant dictator
Raj to Howard: I thought we were going to be gentle with him.
Howard: That's why I added the '-tator'.