Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[Kitty Redstone]

18 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Just an FYI kind of thing: It is worth noting that that's Miranda's comment, and not totally reflective of Hamilton himself.

 

Miranda was talking about Washington, not Hamilton.  I thought I made the quote clear (?).

[Kromm]

Just now, Kitty Redstone said:

Miranda was talking about Washington, not Hamilton.  I thought I made the quote clear (?).

It wasn't a knock on you. Just a statement that we shouldn't be blindly accepting even of the Founders. 

[Kitty Redstone]

I'm not blindly accepting the Founders, just clarifying your misunderstanding of something I quoted.  As that quote specifically related to George Washington and the peaceful transfer of power, Miranda is absolutely correct.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Kitty Redstone

[Kromm]

13 minutes ago, Kitty Redstone said:

I'm not blindly accepting the Founders, just clarifying your misunderstanding of something I quoted.  As that quote specifically related to George Washington and the peaceful transfer of power, Miranda is absolutely correct.

It wasn't intended to insult you at all, and if it came out that way it was a mistake, and you have my apology. 

I did understand what you said, but since Miranda is so widely associated with Hamilton, putting him on a modernly created pedestal, that I thought it should overtly be said, for anyone reading, that this wasn't a lesson Miranda absorbed from all the reading he's done on Hamilton, something Hamilton said about Washington I mean, but rather totally Miranda's own POV on Washington.

The part about blindly accepting the Founders wasn't meant to accuse you of that either. It's about people in general, and Trump, if he knows anything at all about history at all (I doubt it) only takes from it what he wants. I'm sure he has plenty of campaign prepared quotes from the Founders he can parrot back, but unlike most of us here, probably doesn't even care to debate what they actually might mean. But I think it's a big problem with the Trumpettes in general, and in fact a lot of people who rely on talking about the Founders. A lot of rote defenses of the Second Amendment, for example, rely on it. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Kromm

[Kitty Redstone]

There's no need to apologize; I just wanted to be clear.  When it comes to the founders, I have zero illusions about them - I have a degree in History and spent countless hours studying the colonial period.  Usually I stay out of any discussion involving early American history, because my focus was (and remains) on "out" groups, the working class and American Indians ... and people don't usually like hearing about those povs because it conflicts with cherished national myths.  Using the term anti-American was actually difficult for me, because it's a word that's often been leveled against the groups I'm interested in.  But, in this particular instance - Trump and his idiot fans shitting on a centuries-old democratic institution - it's applicable.

[Kromm]

Trump may not admit he's behind, but apparently Kellyanne Conway will:

Donald Trump’s campaign manager admits: ‘We are behind’

She does stick to some of the same talking points that The Orange One uses (because of her coaching I'm sure) that it's allegedly because Clinton spends so much money on Ads. 

She did a lot of dodging on other things, like when she was asked if Trump would continue to devote big parts of his stump speeches to personal attacks on his critics.

Oh, and be horrified at this bit:

Quote

On "Meet the Press," Conway said that Trump is "at his best when he sticks to the issues" but that he also defends himself against false accusations. She said Trump is waiting until after the election to sue the women involved because he's "busy winning the presidency." 

Conway acting like a sitting President (what he would be within a few months of the election) suing his critics is at all normal or permissible. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Kromm

[DollEyes]

Re Trump's Gettysburg speech, Abraham Lincoln must have been turning over in his grave so much it's a wonder there wasn't an earthquake. As for Trump's threats to sue both his accusers and The New York Times if he's elected, I certainly hope so. I'm not the biggest Gloria Allred fan, but she's one of the toughest lawyers in the country and the thought of her cross-examining Trump is the stuff dreams are made of. Re the NYT, I don't believe for a second that one of the best newspapers in the world would deliberately risk its reputation for the likes of Trump. Between Gloria Allred and the NYT, if Trump sues them, then all of Trump's business would be put in the street and it wouldn't be pretty, to put it mildly. 

 Then there was Trump's attacking Hillary at the end of his Al Smith dinner speech. That Trump could get booed at a charity dinner is yet another example of just how unfit he really is. Trump's accusing Hillary of being anti-Catholic despite her running mate Tim Kaine actually being Catholic was just another example of Trump snatching stupid from the jaws of crazy. Then again, that's typical of Trump-trying to make lies sound like the truth and when he's caught plays the victim and blames everyone but himself: "It's Hillary's fault!" "It's the media's fault!" "It's the Democrats' fault!" "It's the Republicans' fault!" "It's the accusers' fault!" "It's the system's fault! "It's the banks' fault!" "It's SNL's fault!" Listen Trumpy, if you really wanna know who's to blame for all your problems, here's a hint-try the mirror.

R &B singer Anthony Hamilton and his back-up singers the Hamiltones have a warning to female voters:

"Don't Vote For Donald"

Edited October 24, 2016 by DollEyes

[millennium]

ABC poll puts Clinton 12 points ahead, but LA Times poll puts them almost even, with Trump retaining the advantage.   How can two polls be so far apart in results?

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

[NewDigs]

How did I miss that Salma Hayek has reported on her, bad, experience with TheDonald.

'Hayek's account, as told to the Spanish-language El Show del Mandril: Trump attempted to befriend her boyfriend as a ruse to get Hayek's phone number; on succeeding, he took to calling to ask her out; and it was when she informed him that even if she didn't have a boyfriend, she still would not go out with him, that Hayek felt the force of what she believed was Trump's retribution.

"He called, well he wouldn't say he called, but someone told the National Enquirer," which published a story saying that Trump wouldn't date Hayek because "I was too short".  

Later Trump called her, leaving a message: "'Can you believe this? Who would say such a thing? No, I don't want people to think that about you' – he thought that I would try to go out with him so people wouldn't think that's why he wouldn't go out with me."

It's also interesting to see the SydneyMorningHerald's take on Drumpf.

And now I'm not sure if this should be in the media thread. Is there a media thread? lol

[AimingforYoko]

6 minutes ago, millennium said:

ABC poll puts Clinton 12 points ahead, but LA Times poll puts them almost even, with Trump retaining the advantage.   How can two polls be so far apart in results?

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

Responding in Polls thread.

[atomationage]

6 minutes ago, millennium said:

How can two polls be so far apart in results?

Is it a tracking poll that asks the same people all the time?

[film noire]

18 hours ago, ari333 said:

I see your point and share that fear. I just meant that I want to dance in the privacy of the living room.  :-)

Anybody dancing the way  you described has pulled off a rare twofer, Ari333 -- hilarious *and* charming: ) My dance will likely be less... well, let's call it less fetching (hard to dance while guzzling a 750 of vodka and screaming, "He has Satan's eyes!", but I'll give it my best shot! In defiance of Trump's "Women over 35 are too oooooold", I'll throw in a few "fifty and fabulous" Molly Shannon leg kicks  - with a Mary Catherine Big Finish -- on behalf of all the Catholic schoolgirls Hillary hates so much: )

Edited October 23, 2016 by film noire

[Padma]

That LA Times poll is always the outlier, always with Trump tied or in the lead when others say the opposite  Guess I need to go to the Polls thread to see why. It always seems so strange.

[ClareWalks]

24 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

Later Trump called her, leaving a message: "'Can you believe this? Who would say such a thing? No, I don't want people to think that about you' – he thought that I would try to go out with him so people wouldn't think that's why he wouldn't go out with me."

It is so incredible to me that Trump has this level of arrogance, that he thinks he can successfully "neg" Salma Freakin' Hayek. I mean, I'm not *surprised*, but it is incredible.

[StatisticalOutlier]

22 hours 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.  

They're probably saying that because on their end, anyway, it probably won't.  Because I think to a lot of Trump supporters, it's a game.  What else can it be when you ask them about his plan to deport millions of people, and they say, "Well, I know he can't really do that."  The wall?  Well of course he can't actually build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.  Sexual assault?  Locker room talk, everybody does it.  Do you do it?  Well, of course not. 

But for people who are revolted by Trump, and who are terrified about everything he has wrought, it's not a game.

Now, I'm not sure this could have been avoided given just how big a deal all this is this year, but I remember, and miss, the good old days when I didn't know the political beliefs of all of my friends.  Especially people I grew up with, some of whom I'm still actual friends with, as in we plan get-togethers every few years with a group of us who live in different cities.

Friends I made as an adult?  I generally know their leanings, and naturally gravitate to other liberals.  Or, I gravitate to smart people, and they tend to be liberals.

But it pains me that I can no longer just be friends with people I've known for almost 50 years, enjoying our shared history.  These are people I didn't choose, but was thrown in with in school, and call me crazy, but I treasure that weird model of relationships.

I managed okay even through Sarah Palin, when all it was was something like a forwarded email, to which I'd respond that I don't like forwarded emails and it would stop.  But I took a very quick glance at Facebook several months ago (I have a fake account and therefore no actual presence) and saw what some of these friends "like" and I lost all respect, and I just don't know that I want to be friends with people I don't respect.

As someone pointed out, it's more than just different political views this time.  My best friend, actually, is a lifelong Republican (fiscal conservative, social liberal, who will be voting for Hillary), but I never let it affect our friendship because although I disagreed with her, I respected her basis for her opinions and she didn't hate homosexuals.  And we never talked politics, except she still kids me about one election day, when she said she hadn't voted yet, and I told her to get over there right now.  She asked why I would do that because her vote would cancel mine out, and I just said it's the system, go vote.  (I wouldn't do that today with Trump supporter--just sayin'.)

But being ignorant of friends' politics is pretty much impossible now.  Shoot--I didn't like it even back when I realized I couldn't look at someone's FB profile without finding out they're real churchy.  Which shouldn't be a surprise when you grow up in a very conservative area, but I preferred the previous 40 years when I could see people every five or ten years at a reunion and catch up and if we wanted to stay in contact, we'd make the effort, and I never had to know how they felt about Jesus.  And the problem is that FB is pretty much the ONLY way to keep up with people.  I'm paying the price by not being on it, and I accept that, but I'm not going to pretend I'm okay with it.  It, and this election, have unalterably changed my relationships with people that didn't need to be changed.

 

19 hours ago, Padma said:

A great national celebration of victory over evil hateful Trump. But...unfortunately, while they would have been obnoxious in victory (and punitive) we'll all have to be gracious, inclusive and pleasant while they go on about rigging and criminals et. etc.

That's what irks me no end.  I'm a big believer in taking the high road, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth it.  The people on the "other side" certainly don't respect it.  I mean, just look at their t-shirts. 

I voted in the Republican primary for nefarious reasons, and have been treated to Trump solicitations in the mail.  He always refers to his opponent as Crooked Hillary.  That's just so offensive and juvenile.  And it works.  Sigh. 

He also "dates" the letters as "Tuesday morning" instead of something like, oh, August 24, 2016.  Everything about that man pisses me off.

 

16 hours ago, millennium said:

The funny part is, they were ardent Kennedy Democrats when I was growing up.   Irish Catholic family, portraits of the Pope and Kennedy in the parlor.

Know what changed them?

Bill Clinton.   That scandal turned them against the Democratic party.    Even the Kennedy portrait came down.

That's kind of ironic, considering Kennedy's reputation.

 

14 hours ago, Advance35 said:

You guys are braver then me.  I was thinking of taking a pharmaceutical, going to sleep and HOPEFULLY waking up to a better world.

In 2000, I insulated myself from the result because I just couldn't bear George Bush winning and wasn't a huge fan of Gore.  I managed it even thought I had a job.  (That's how civilized things were back in the olden days--you could avoid politics even at the office.)  I worked alone until after midnight on election day, drove home without the radio, and went back to work mid-morning the next day and said, "Don't say anything about the election.  I don't want to know who won."  I remember that one person said something like, "We don't know either" and I just kind of ignored it, obviously not knowing what the hell she was talking about.  Mr. Outlier knew, but respected my desire not to know, although he did cryptically say things like, "It's interesting."

I made it through Wednesday and Thursday, but we were flying to New York on Friday.  I still wanted to hold firm, but Mr. Outlier said there's no way I'm going to be able to walk through three airports and not find out what's happening, which didn't really make sense because I didn't think the headlines would be all that screamy about the winner three days later.  But he'd been so compliant that I trusted him, so on Thursday night, I said, "Okay, tell me."  Poor thing--he'd been holding all that in for DAYS.

I was considering a similar strategy this year, except the election is right in the middle of a film festival I want to volunteer to work at.  Dang it! 

Edited October 23, 2016 by StatisticalOutlier
clarify that my Republican best friend doesn't hate gays, which would be a deal breaker.

[ClareWalks]

Totally agree with you guys re: losing friendships over this election. I lost a couple of friends in 2004 because, after a LOT of deliberation, I basically decided the day before the election to vote for Bush and not Kerry. I was fairly vocal about my ambivalence and dislike of John Kerry leading up to the election, and a couple of my extremely liberal friends got very pissed off at me that I was even considering re-electing Bush. 

This election, to me, is a whole other kettle of fish. Re-electing Bush, at least from my perspective now looking back, does/did not indicate a severe moral bankruptcy the way voting for Trump does today. He is SO repugnant in SO many ways. So in a way, I understand why my friends dumped me in 2004, but in a way I don't think it's comparable, and I'll bet those same folks are going totally scorched-Earth on their relationships with Trump fans today.

[millennium]

38 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

That's kind of ironic, considering Kennedy's reputation.

 

 

Kennedy did a better job of hiding it.   Nothing my family appreciates more than folks who can keep their private lives to themselves.

Great post overall, btw.  I'm not on Facebook either and I know exactly what you're talking about.

Edited October 23, 2016 by millennium

[backformore]

4 hours ago, Menrva said:

My husband and I have an election night party and we create a menu based on the candidates. I also make cakes; last election, for Obama I made 47% of a cake. We had deep dish pizza for Obama and bacon-wrapped scallops for Biden, apple pie for Romney and a cheese plate for Ryan. When it was McCain and Palin, we had chili and Klondike bars. Not sure what I'll do for this election. I was thinking that orange colored junk food would represent Trump pretty well.

 Oh, Menrva!  If you lived in my town, or anywhere near, I'd want to be your best friend!    I think Cheetos for Trump would be the best option. 

And sour grapes. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by backformore

[Menrva]

3 minutes ago, backformore said:

 Oh, Menrva!  If you lived in my town, or anywhere near, I'd want to be your best friend!    I think Cheetos for Trump would be the best option. 

And sour grapes. 

They don't call him Cheeto Jesus for nothing… :)

I did manage to find orange cotton candy too. Sour grapes is also a good idea.

Just over two weeks to go and it will be over. Does anyone think the Donald will just slink away to lick his wounds if he loses, or will he stick around screaming about the rigged election results? I admit to being a bit afraid that his disgruntled supporters might try to start an insurrection.

[StatisticalOutlier]

9 minutes ago, millennium said:

Kennedy did a better job of hiding it.   Nothing my family appreciates more than folks who can keep their private lives to themselves.

Well, you can't say Clinton didn't try to keep it to himself.  Unlike a certain Republican nominee. 

 

2 minutes ago, Menrva said:

I did manage to find orange cotton candy too.

I wonder if the orange cotton candy purveyors will wonder why their product is still selling for a solid week after Halloween.

[backformore]

5 minutes ago, Menrva said:

Just over two weeks to go and it will be over. Does anyone think the Donald will just slink away to lick his wounds if he loses, or will he stick around screaming about the rigged election results? I admit to being a bit afraid that his disgruntled supporters might try to start an insurrection.

Maybe he'll just start his OWN country! 

I see Trump's complaints very odd.  He has said that he's a billionaire, he knows more about politics, government, finances, hell, he knows more about EVERYTHING than anyone else.   So how does a rich guy who is so much better at everything than the rest of us - not know how to rig the election in his own favor? 

[HumblePi]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

That LA Times poll is always the outlier, always with Trump tied or in the lead when others say the opposite  Guess I need to go to the Polls thread to see why. It always seems so strange.

I try not to put much stock in poll numbers, they just can't be trusted to be correct with any accuracy. Even if it looks like the race is decided the outcome on election day is the only sure way to know who will win. Polls will say that Hillary or Donald is in the lead but people shouldn't trust this because it was this same trust that was the same mindset that led the major pollsters 68 years ago to stop polling several weeks before the 1948 election. Tom Dewey’s lead was so firm and consistent that there was no way Harry Truman would be able to win. But in contrast to the polls taken two weeks before the election, the man from Missouri did win. Newspapers had already gone to press proclaiming Dewey the winner.

No matter how much one candidate leads in the polls over the other, polling will not be suspended two weeks in advance of election day as it was in 1948. There's just nothing that proves that polls will be right in the end. In 2012, on the night before election day, Mitt Romney was projected to be the winner according to polling numbers. A day later Obama won the election by nearly 4 percentage points.

Edited October 23, 2016 by HumblePi

[StatisticalOutlier]

30 minutes ago, backformore said:

I see Trump's complaints very odd.  He has said that he's a billionaire, he knows more about politics, government, finances, hell, he knows more about EVERYTHING than anyone else.   So how does a rich guy who is so much better at everything than the rest of us - not know how to rig the election in his own favor? 

OMG.  I literally was just organizing my thoughts to post the exact. same. thing.  How has this idea not become a "thing"?

[Rapunzel]

36 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

OMG.  I literally was just organizing my thoughts to post the exact. same. thing.  How has this idea not become a "thing"?

I posted in this thread a few days ago that perhaps he is trying to rig it - it just may not be working out. His relationship with Putin and the fact that he keeps hyping Putin and Russians is troubling, to say the least. Also, if he really does owe money to Putin/Russia, that would help give Russia the motivation to see him elected so he can truly be, as Hillary said, Putin's Puppet. People don't seem to be disputing that Russia hacked our e-mails. It is interesting that it seems to be only the ones that are about/belong to Hillary are getting out. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Trump colluded with Putin and/or WikiLeaks to try to help rig this election in his favor. Unfortunately for him, it still may not pan out in his favor.

As I also mentioned previously, it would seem that we could find a way to help track whether or not (or really I should say how much) Trump is involved in the hacking by the Russians given our resources. Also, our allies in Europe would likely be willing to help us with this as the majority of them are afraid of what will happen to their Countries should Trump be elected, especially given his rather cozy relationship with Putin/Russia.

In any case, Putin/Russia is likely the brains behind this and he has already started using Trump if Trump is, indeed, involved in any way. Trump doesn't have the brains to come up with this all by himself, but with Putin's power of suggestion and if he is in debt to Putin, that would certainly motivate him to help - especially as the man is an egomaniac and does not want to lose the Presidential Race no matter what.

[random chance]

I see on Twitter that the latest Wikileaks thing is decoding some sentences to conclude that the Clintons murdered Scalia. If I had anywhere to bet money, I'd bet big money that Trump will mention this before the day is over.

[Padma]

1 hour ago, backformore said:

I see Trump's complaints very odd.  He has said that he's a billionaire, he knows more about politics, government, finances, hell, he knows more about EVERYTHING than anyone else.   So how does a rich guy who is so much better at everything than the rest of us - not know how to rig the election in his own favor? 

Hmmm. Maybe he does?  Actually, I think he's too stupid, but the idea's interesting, especially with the help his campaign is getting from Russian cyberintelligence at the moment.

I mean, think of it.  He asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Apparently they couldn't get hers, but they got Podesta's (a private citizen) and stole ten years worth of those. Then gave them to Assange to release in order to rig the election for Trump!

And yet, right around that time, HE started deflecting from that criminal theft and how he embraces the effort of a foreign government to interfere in our election! Instead, he's attacking our "corrupt system"--just like a magician who's putting our attention over there, while pulling a trick on us here.  I mean, it's outrageous that he's getting --and embracing-- the support from Russia and their attempts to undermine our democracy!

So--I'm not saying this is happening, only that you could see how it would work very cleverly if it were--what if Russia actually COULD hack into our computers and change the results? But Trump's preemptive attack on the corruption of the "system" is a distraction to the public to put the blame elsewhere. Then, when he wins (due to cheating with Russia's help) he can say the numbers were because he motivated his voters to turn out and "fight corruption"!

Again, not saying this is possible, only that IF it were, I have every confidence that Donald Trump would be happy to stage a distraction ahead of the election and that he wouldn't hesitate to cheat to win--including letting Russian intelligence steal the election from Hillary.  That's a terrible reflection on the man who would be president, but I don't have a doubt in my mind. I actually think he has no principles at all. 

[HumblePi]

About the surrogates. There's been quite a few, but why are most of them blonde? Anyway there is a token brunette in the batch, Katrina Pierson.  I will certainly not miss Kayleigh McEnany, Kristina Pierson, Scottie Nells Hughes, Kellyanne Conway, Amy Kremer, Betsy McCaughey, Gina Loudon, or Corey Lewandowski.

Watching Jake Trapper on CNN this morning with Kellyanne Conway, he talked about the claim that this election is rigged and also brought up her words against Trump when she was on Ted Cruz's payroll.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-rigged_us_580ce5d2e4b02444efa3ec81

Katrina Pierson took some criticism for her defense of Donald Trump and the allegation that he molested Jessica Leeds on an airplane 30 years ago.  I think it's a little funny that Katrina Pierson seems to believe that emphasizing specific words in her sentences makes them more believable.

[Padma]

The only little bit of optimism I can find in this "rigged election" (fill in epithet of your choice), is that IF Trump loses so decisively, in so many battleground states, with low popular vote and low electoral college results, and IF he really does concede--saying it was a fair loss after all--maybe his deplorables would actually accept the result in a way they wouldn't have if he hadn't been whipping them up over the "cheating" for weeks.

I mean, assuming he loses (please, please, please), and by a big margin, it would be hard to allege cheating was that widespread, esp. since he'll have nothing to go on to support it. So maybe...just maybe...the deplorables will see that HE accepts it--never a given--and they will, begrudgingly, accept it too.  Or is this too much wishful thinking?

[millennium]

1 hour ago, backformore said:

  So how does a rich guy who is so much better at everything than the rest of us - not know how to rig the election in his own favor? 

It's a national farce.   Everyone KNOWS the elections aren't rigged.   We know it, Trump knows it, and his supporters know it too.   Game strategy is all it is.   The problem is that the media keeps positioning it as a genuine concern, bringing in experts on both sides to confirm or refute Trump's contrived accusations, lending unwarranted credibility to what is simply an outrageous, unfounded claim.   I swear to God, Trump could allege tomorrow that there are lizard people running the government and Wolf Blitzer and a panel of experts would be discussing the possibility in The Situation Room tomorrow night.   The back and forth would continue through mid-week and by Thursday be lodged in the public consciousness that lizard people may be a factor in the outcome of the election. 

Why is it against the law to frivolously shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater but not to frivolously shout "RIGGED ELECTION!" on national TV?   If you ask me, the latter has greater potential to do more damage and harm than a prank at the multiplex.  

[b2H]

On 10/22/2016 at 1:33 PM, 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.

As I understand it, Trump has already had an offer from an Israeli firm to build the wall.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/29787/Default.aspx

[StatisticalOutlier]

6 minutes ago, Padma said:

I mean, assuming he loses (please, please, please), and by a big margin, it would be hard to allege cheating was that widespread, esp. since he'll have nothing to go on to support it.

Unfortunately, I think having nothing to go on to support an argument is the least of barriers.  Obama's still gonna take away our guns, y'all. 

[Kitty Redstone]

13 minutes ago, Padma said:

I mean, assuming he loses (please, please, please), and by a big margin, it would be hard to allege cheating was that widespread, esp. since he'll have nothing to go on to support it. So maybe...just maybe...the deplorables will see that HE accepts it--never a given--and they will, begrudgingly, accept it too.  Or is this too much wishful thinking?

The larger, more intricate, and more ridiculous the conspiracy, the more likely these nutters will believe it.  It's both amazing and horrifying the lengths they will  go to make nefarious connections, half-ass assumptions and fantastical conclusions.  Reason and facts are meaningless.  Thankfully they are a very small portion of the population.

[Padma]

3 minutes ago, Kitty Redstone said:

The larger, more intricate, and more ridiculous the conspiracy, the more likely these nutters will believe it.  It's both amazing and horrifying the lengths they will  go to make nefarious connections, half-ass assumptions and fantastical conclusions.  Reason and facts are meaningless.  Thankfully they are a very small portion of the population.

Do we know how small? After all, they've made some conspiracy theorists very rich.  13.3 million voted for Trump in the primaries.  Even if 10% were crackpots, that's still over a million people. Based on interviews at his rallies (where a random sampling always turns them up), it seems it may be even more than that. I wonder.

[Kromm]

48 minutes ago, random chance said:

I see on Twitter that the latest Wikileaks thing is decoding some sentences to conclude that the Clintons murdered Scalia. If I had anywhere to bet money, I'd bet big money that Trump will mention this before the day is over.

Honestly, the fear of being tossed out of that embassy has probably driven that little shit Assange the rest of the way to insanity (he's been almost there for quite some time). 

[MulletorHater]

2 hours ago, HumblePi said:

I try not to put much stock in poll numbers, they just can't be trusted to be correct with any accuracy. Even if it looks like the race is decided the outcome on election day is the only sure way to know who will win. Polls will say that Hillary or Donald is in the lead but people shouldn't trust this because it was this same trust that was the same mindset that led the major pollsters 68 years ago to stop polling several weeks before the 1948 election. Tom Dewey’s lead was so firm and consistent that there was no way Harry Truman would be able to win. But in contrast to the polls taken two weeks before the election, the man from Missouri did win. Newspapers had already gone to press proclaiming Dewey the winner.

No matter how much one candidate leads in the polls over the other, polling will not be suspended two weeks in advance of election day as it was in 1948. There's just nothing that proves that polls will be right in the end. In 2012, on the night before election day, Mitt Romney was projected to be the winner according to polling numbers. A day later Obama won the election by nearly 4 percentage points.

That's why it's imperative that folks who want our democracy to work need to get out and vote.  If folks live in a state or city with early voting, take advantage of it.

I worked very closely with the Obama campaign in 2012, and although the campaign's internal polling indicated that he could win it, it was emphasized that the race was still too close to call.  Even then we had to worry about voter suppression tactics and other tricks such as robocalls to minority voters giving them the wrong date to report to the polls.  There were reports of voter intimidation, including President Obama being burned in effigy.  I work a block over from the White House, and our street was blocked off on Election Day because of a "suspicious package" in the middle of the street.  Shit is real.

That's why it was important in 2012 to let folks know in Florida and Ohio, once they were in line, DON'T GO HOME!  No matter how long the lines are--DON'T GO HOME!  Bring a law chair, have someone go and get your food if necessary.  But, DON'T LEAVE!  Fortunately, that message got out there loud and clear.  We had the same issue at some polling places in Northern Virginia, which is why it took so long to call Virginia for Obama.  Also, READ the voter information on what your rights are!  You have a right to vote without molestation or intimidation.  Keep those cell phones handy!  You don't have to threaten to cut a bitch if someone gets in your face, but don't let nobody turn you around!

Getting off my Fannie Lou Hamer soapbox...

[Advance35]

Why hasn't something been done about this.  Cyber Terror is VERY serious and Wikileaks is just a small part of it.   Has anything been done about Russia's involvement in the latest hacks.   Agency Officials have come out and said that both Clinton AND Trump have been briefed on Russia's ties to recent online troubles.   Though that massive internet blackout this weekend was someone else from what I understand right?

In any event, I think Trump is the only political figure (How can this be a world where I have to say that) that doesn't recognize the danger hackers are or maybe it's just because they've been hacking and forging documents in reference to his foes.   But based on Rubio I'm thinking even the other Republicans are becoming aware that this is something that must be stopped.

Ugh, why can't they just book this Orange for treason and get him the hell out of our lives.

[Kitty Redstone]

35 minutes ago, Padma said:

Do we know how small? After all, they've made some conspiracy theorists very rich.  13.3 million voted for Trump in the primaries.  Even if 10% were crackpots, that's still over a million people. Based on interviews at his rallies (where a random sampling always turns them up), it seems it may be even more than that. I wonder.

Sorry, I don't know.  I'm going by the number of crackpots historically, which has always been small; their impact on modern popular culture, which were it not for Donald would be close to nil; my own personal experience; and (tbh) a whole lot of faith in my fellow human beings.  Just remember that not all the primary voters who chose him are conspiracy theorists - many were regular Republicans who thought he was less odious that Ted Cruz and more likely to win than Marco Rubio.  As for reporters, they're going to seek out whatever will generate the most impact (perhaps even shock value) and help shape their narrative.  It will be ok!

ETA:  If you poke around for awhile on the Skeptics Society site, you'll probably feel much better.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Kitty Redstone

[MulletorHater]

7 hours ago, Padma said:

How can 18% (nearly 1 in 5 Republicans!!!) say they definitely won't accept results of an election that hasn't even been held yet?  What is WRONG with these people????

Sour grapes makes a nice Trump appetizer.

They've been choking on those sour grapes since 2008.  

Hence, the crusade to get rid of Acorn and other schemes to delegitimize President Obama by any means necessary, including the "birther" foolery.   Rachel Maddow outed the GOP a few years ago regarding their "plan" to impeach Obama, along with Attorney General Eric Holder.  Hmmm...I wonder what those two gentlemen had in common?

Edited October 24, 2016 by MulletorHater

[Kromm]

8 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

Rachel Maddow outed the GOP a few years ago regarding their "plan" to impeach Obama, along with Attorney General Eric Holder.  Hmmm...I wonder what those two gentlemen had in common?

Hmmmm....

 

They're both football fans?

They both like blue ties and lapel pins?

They both have ears which stick out?

Nah.

[Landsnark]

Deep dish pizza is Chicagoan.  And yukky.  But what does bacon wrapped scallops and apple pie mean?  Apple pie because he's super-American?  Cheese plate because Ryan is cheesy or from Wisconsin?

We need instruction and direction!!

[Menrva]

1 hour ago, Landsnark said:

Deep dish pizza is Chicagoan.  And yukky.  But what does bacon wrapped scallops and apple pie mean?  Apple pie because he's super-American?  Cheese plate because Ryan is cheesy or from Wisconsin?

We need instruction and direction!!

Biden was the senator from Delaware and they are known for their scallops. We wrapped them in bacon because it's a) delicious and b) bacon=pork=Washington. Deep dish pizza=Obama. Romney grew up in Michigan and apples are one of their major exports, and yes, apple pie is all-American (and also delicious!). And yes, cheese plate because Wisconsin. 

Honestly, Trump reminds me of those cheese logs covered in nuts that you spread on crackers. It's very apt, IMO.

[Silver Raven]

The Trump Tower is a dump

 

Fake steel contact paper sheets over the plain white refrigerators in the Trump Grill restaurant, walls and ceilings falling apart, etc.

[Kitty Redstone]

Ahahaha!  My favorite part of that article was this:

Quote

Update: it's still dead! Sad.

[biakbiak]

I love that it's harming is and Ivanka's brands!

[Kitty Redstone]

Yes, in a perfect world everyone will flee from the name Trump.

[Kromm]

57 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

The Trump Tower is a dump

 

Fake steel contact paper sheets over the plain white refrigerators in the Trump Grill restaurant, walls and ceilings falling apart, etc.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-by-those-who-know-him-best-1466806294

Quote

Barbara Res, the engineer in charge of the construction of Trump Tower, notes that he had a policy of spending money only where it could be seen. Thus while his lobbies are extravagant, the apartments were floored in glue-down laminates, “the kind you would find in subsidized housing,” Ms. Res reveals in “All Alone on the 68th Floor: How One Woman Changed the Face of Construction” (2013).

But the principal was often enraged by his own choices. In one project, Ms. Res was installing “a Chinese stand-in for a Vermont marble called antique verde. . . . Donald took one look at this marble and started screaming at me. He was shaking. . . . I said, ‘Look Donald, this is the marble you approved. It was cheap, you wanted to save money. Don’t blame me.’ It was like pouring gasoline on a fire. His face was red. His mouth was all twisted and I thought to myself, if he hits you, just take a fall.”

 

57 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

from the article linked:

To get to the public garden, you must ascend the "Escalator of Kings" that Trump made famous when announcing his candidacy in June, 2015. 

You may also recognize this escalator from when Trump told the ten year old he'd be dating her eventually.

[HumblePi]

A documentary premiered tonight, produced by Univision's Jorge Ramos.  He is the Hispanic reporter that Trump kicked out of his press conference last year. It's on Fusion Network, called 'Hate Rising'.   It's a study into the racism and bigotry in American and it's stunning and not in a good way. It's stunning to see how deeply hatred lies in some people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-jorge-ramos-found-after-talking-to-hate-groups-in-the-age-of-trump_us_580ad634e4b000d0b156e8f4

Edited October 24, 2016 by HumblePi

[needschocolate]

10 hours ago, Kromm said:

She does stick to some of the same talking points that The Orange One uses (because of her coaching I'm sure) that it's allegedly because Clinton spends so much money on Ads. 

Kellyanne is sort of right but her logic is backwards - Clinton does spend  more money on ads.  That is because Clinton has more money to spend on ads.  And that is because more people donate to her campaign because more people want her to win.  And, because more people want her to win, then fewer people want Trump to win, which is the same as saying that Trump is losing.

8 hours ago, backformore said:

I see Trump's complaints very odd.  He has said that he's a billionaire, he knows more about politics, government, finances, hell, he knows more about EVERYTHING than anyone else.   So how does a rich guy who is so much better at everything than the rest of us - not know how to rig the election in his own favor? 

If he is so much better than everyone else at everything, how come he doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut? (rhetorical question)

Perhaps Trump is rigging the polls - that would explain how he is getting 35% of the votes, because I don't have a better explanation for it.  

[Padma]

He has a lot of millions that he's just sitting on though. No ground game even in battleground states. Few ads (and the one I've seen is cheaply made.)   People thought he would hire staff and buy ad time, but he has done very little, mainly relying on the RNC's organization in the states.

Personally, I believe he's looking ahead and trying to save as much money as he can for himself when its all over. He can't legally put it into his personal bank account, but he CAN give it to charity.  If his "charitable foundation" is still under investigation, there's always Eric Trump's--and he spends hundreds of thousands of his donors' money at Daddy's golf courses and resorts, esp. Mar-a-lago.   Plus Trump is billing a lot more for Trump Tower use, building use and 757 use now that its being paid for with donors' money.  (And we taxpayers are billed a lot for his SS passengers because he insists on traveling in the 757 for $450k a trip, rather than than something more like Hillary's much smaller and cheaper campaign plane.

Anyway, I think he's planning to keep as much cash at this point for himself as he can. I wonder how many people he's stiffing among his staff? You know there are some--and due to the NDA they won't be able to talk about it.

[springtime]

I believe the Trump camp is readying a "We ran out of time" explanation for election day.