Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[backformore]

1 hour ago, madmaverick said:

Sad to say it, but I think Trump will still come out a 'winner' per his standards even if he loses the election.  Everyone in the world now knows his name and that's got to do wonders for his ego.  He's got unprecedented publicity for himself, his brand, and he's going to parlay that for years.  Maybe another reality show down the road or something even bigger.  More book deals.  There will always be those people who will think he could have Made America Great Again.  He's always going to have a soapbox to his base if he wants it to brag about himself and to undermine Hillary during her presidency.  Palin x 10, except Trump has his own money as he loves reminding us.  

rumor is that he is looking to start his own TV network.  

Trump has spent much of his life chasing money.   Though he still likes money, the pursuit of wealth got a little boring.  He wants power and influence.  If he can't do it by leading the country, he can start a TV network (hence hiring Roger Ailles the minute FoxNews let him go)  and work on influencing as many people as he can through TV.

Someone said to me that it's like Trump is in high school, and he's running for student council president.  But he doesn't really WANT to do the job of student council president.  What he really wants to be is homecoming king, where the entire job consists of riding in a float and waving to people. 

[Landsnark]

There is no point in observing the disqualifying behavior and language, and being rational about that.  His supporters will not choose to understand Trump's threat.  Cogent arguments are pointless at this stage.  That guy in a red sweater is undecided.  Think about that. 

Trump's supporters would either articulately attempt to dismantle your points with "But Hillary..." and that is their pivot point, and all they care to see.  That won't change.
The others are exactly like the Louie Anderson-looking blonde lady holding the "Bill Clinton is a rapist [or papist? unsure]" sign at the Trump rally yesterday who said, "I think people are going to rise up because we're tired of taking it.  We're tired of being deplorables.  We want to be thought of as Americans, instead of just her stepping stone.  So yes, people will probably rise up."  1,000% sure she doesn't catch the layers and layers of irony.

[ruby24]

If the alt right started its own third party, that could actually free up the Republican party to become reasonable again.

Personally, I think we're in the middle of some sort of realignment that we don't know the end result of yet. And the parties are due for that, historically.

I even think there's some chance, given this newly activist liberal base within the Dem party, that the Democrats could be the ones to break, forming a socialist party on the left, while the Centrist Democrats stay and absorb the rational Republicans, finally free of the alt right and free to be interested in compromise and governing again. Something like this could happen within, I'd say, two or three election cycles.

[backformore]

Jimmy kimmel attempts to break down what the heck Trump is talking about: 

[Advance35]

Quote

The trials would go forward.

Really????????? The president of the US on trial for rape??????? What does that even look like?  Trump has shown he has no respect for decorum, rules/regulations or I'd bet my bottom dollar, the law if he somehow wins this horror show of an election.   A man like Trump with the kind of power that comes with the oval office, picture what this man could and probably would do to any and all opposition he faced.   I invite anyone to tell me I need to dial it back but the thought of retaliation by this man is a scary thing.   I just hope there are enough Democrats in Senate and House positions to stop him from dragging us all over a cliff with him.

OT but, on some sites I've been hearing that a "Gloria Allred" is starting to play a role in all this and the sites that reported this seemed very happy with the idea.

As to why more isn't made of Trumps (hopefully impending) legal woes, I think that HRC has to play a very particular, strategic and nuanced game in terms of optics.   She's fighting under rules that Trump doesn't have too.  Not to mention he's got that demon Breibart or whatever it's name is.   There are legit issues where she is concerned and that coupled with the things that are manufactured as obstacles and in some ways it's like trying to watch a ballet dancer do "Swan Lake" in a straight jacket and with chains around their ankles.  I'm hoping HRC is every bit the conniving snake (all politicians are in my eyes, just that some are better) that many say she is and she's got a scheme cooking.

[backformore]

Donald Trump's campaign started with "Let's take America back"  (from the Black guy)  that last part was understood, not spoken.

Now, the message is :

Quote

Mr. Trump has stood before rallies attended overwhelmingly by his white backers and urged them to go to “certain areas” on Election Day. “Go and vote and then go check out areas because a lot of bad things happen,” he said in Pennsylvania, where lax state laws allow poll watchers to challenge voters as they arrive at precincts. “You know what I’m talking about,” he added. On Monday, he told his followers that they must watch “other communities.” “I hear these horror shows, and we have to make sure that this election is not stolen from us and is not taken away from us,” he said. “And everybody knows what I’m talking about.”

He's telling white voters to go to Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and intimidate people.   Yeah, Donald, we know what you're talking about. 

 

Earlier, Trump was painted as a racist.  His supporters were told that they must be racists.   then he went "to Milwaukee" where there were riots (but really to a white suburb 80 miles away)  and then to Chicago, where he said people were being killed on the street.  And again, he stayed on the ultra-rich Gold Coast, then spent time in a white suburb.  He talked to white audiences about what he wanted to do for the "Black communities".  Why?  to make the white voters feel better about themselves.  "See?  I'm not supporting a racist for president!  He cares about all those Black people whose lives are crap because they don't have houses, jobs, or good schools!"  

[MulletorHater]

20 minutes ago, Padma said:

When he loses...

He's definitely talking about rigged system.

And the media won it for Hillary.

And the disloyal Republicans lost him some votes too.

Plus, I'm sure he has some new money-making scheme with Bannon post election, to get the cult member on board with a new website or television station or newspaper or radio program (all with big money to be made from ads). 50 million people is a lot.  Even though none of them will be able to afford a room at Trump International in DC ($700 - $18000/night) I'm sure he's already thought of a way to cash in.

Yesterday, I heard he might not even MAKE a concession speech, but Mike Pence would give a statement.

His boy, Joe Scarborough, has already started putting forth these themes.  It's as if he's quoting from Trump's playbook verbatim.  That also explains why Joe and Meek-a watched a different debate from the one most of us watched Sunday night and they made a valiant effort to convince the audience that Trump actually won.  I'm sure those foreigners who gamed the system so they could vote illegally will be blamed also. 

I have no doubt Trump is already looking ahead and more than likely promised Joe and his platinum-haired henchwoman a ride aboard the Trump-O-Whirl.  It would be just like him, with Ailes' assistance, to whip up the faithful for the next 4+ years through their joint media venture.

It wouldn't surprise me if he refused to prepare a concession speech.  He's already changed the way politics is conducted in this country for generations to come.  Pence will do what he has to so that he can run in 2020. 

[madmaverick]

I think it's gone well beyond big govt or small govt at this point.  It's about sane, serious, credible government. 

[Kromm]

32 minutes ago, Padma said:

Oh. I know.

He and Bannon will use his loss to set up a new third party filled with Hillary and GOP haters. The alt.right will have it's Trojan Horse to go mainstream with Donald Trump. It doesn't matter that they won't have any grass roots organization (the same way they don't now, no matter what he says).

And there's TONS of money to be made there, starting a third party, without all the work of a television or radio station.

It's the nightmare scenario for the Republicans, and why they never should have let things go this far. A splintering of their base that will ensure they can no longer win most elections. 

A few from the Dem side would join, but most would hold back unless and until someone like Sanders (well, his heirs since he will be too old to even consider it in 4-8 years) choses to run off the ticket. The Tea Party almost split the Republicans up, and now a Drumpf party would drive the nails in.

[Advance35]

Quote

Hillary will be a disaster for this country and Trump is the only one that has a chance to bring it back to sanity.

As I've said I'm not thrilled with Hillary either, but you don't harbor any concern about Trump's temper?  

Someone told me he would have people around to advise him and keep him in check (as it were), but His revolving Campaign Managers seem to get worst and worst.   One he had to fire because he had unsavory and financial ties to a combative foreign power and his replacement is a new-era white supremacist.  I am honestly asking, do you think a Trump presidency would be ok for minorities?  Or the Middle Class and the Poor, considering pretty much every working analyst says you will need to be part of the 1% to benefit from Trump's Tax plans.

[Jordan27]

He was my first choice because he fought against PC and was willing to fight for us, unlike so many Republicans who kowtow to libs and the media. 

Hillary would be a disaster for this country.  She would go after our second amendments rights with all the SC justices that will be put on the court in the next term.

She is for raising taxes and big gov't.  Something our country doesn't need.

[cpcathy]

Obama did not take away anyone's guns while he was President and neither will Hillary. The NRA makes sure of that.

[backformore]

Trump and pal  (convicted sex offender)  Epstein are being sued by a woman who said she was raped by them when she was 13:

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/11/status-conference-in-trump-lawsuit/

Quote

Proceedings in a federal lawsuit filed in New York, accusing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl over 20 years ago at several Upper East Side parties hosted by convicted sex offender and notorious billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein, have been scheduled but will not take place until after the November 8 election date.

Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams has ordered a status conference to be held at 11:30 AM on 16 December 2016 (more than a month after Election Day) at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, calling for both sides to provide information that might assist the Court in advancing the case to either settlement or trial — including "a brief description of the nature of the actual and the principal defenses thereto, a brief explanation of why jurisdiction and venue lie in this court, a brief description of all contemplated and/or outstanding motions, a brief description of any discovery that has already taken place, and a brief description of prior settlement discussions":

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Quote

There is little doubt that Donald Trump knows Jeffrey Epstein, as Trump acknowledged in a 2002 New York magazine profile of Epstein:

Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Epstein has been named in multiple similar lawsuits over the last several years, served 13 months in jail, and is registered as a sex offender for life:

Billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has paid another accuser.

The 56-year-old money manager has quietly settled with Jane Doe 102, an unnamed woman who alleged in federal court in Florida that Epstein had induced her to "serve his every sexual whim" from the time she was 15 until she was 19. The woman also claimed Epstein had flown her around the world, paying her "to be sexually exploited by [his friends] ... including royalty, politicians, academicians [and] businessmen."

Epstein flatly denied those charges. But a source close to the financier confirms "the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties." The woman's lawyer, Robert Josefsberg, wouldn't say how much she's getting. Epstein had in the past offered accusers a minimum of $150,000.

Epstein has settled at least two other civil suits but still faces more than a dozen from women who claim he sexually abused them as minors at his Palm Beach mansion.

Yet Trump can cast stones at Bill Clinton!

[Nidratime]

Our government got pretty big under Republicans, especially the Defense Dept., with no plan to pay for it. (Think about that totally unnecessary Iraq war.) It's Democrats who are more economically sound. What's that old Truman saying? "If you want to live like a Republican, you've got to vote for a Democrat."

[MulletorHater]

2 minutes ago, Kromm said:

It's the nightmare scenario for the Republicans, and why they never should have let things go this far. A splintering of their base that will ensure they can no longer win most elections. 

A few from the Dem side would join, but most would hold back unless and until someone like Sanders (well, his heirs since he will be too old to even consider it in 4-8 years) choses to run off the ticket. The Tea Party almost split the Republicans up, and now a Drumpf party would drive the nails in.

I suspect this is why the RNC wanted its candidates to take that pledge at the beginning of the primary season.  Preibus & Co. probably messed their britches when Drumpf was making noises about the possibility of running as an Independent if he wasn't "treated fairly."  Even after he made the pledge, he gave signs that he was ready to renege on it because of some slight.  Why anyone would trust a man who is a serial bankrupt and stiffs vendors and contractors to actually keep his word is beyond my comprehension.

It's interesting that some of the folks who said they wouldn't support over the weekend Drumpf are now back on board.  Why?  Because they're timid about pissing off his base, which they need to secure their own seats.  That's why Speaker Ryan continues to be timid because he needs Drump more than Drumpf needs him.  Now, the party is convulsing and will probably never be the same after this election cycle.  But, this is what happens when politicians knowingly choose to wallow in the mud with pigs just to hold onto power.

[Guest]

There is no way a President can just repeal your second amendment right. 

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

[Padma]

Someone here mentioned Gloria Allred might be getting involved. (Sorry I can't seem to find your post. :( ). If so, that is GREAT news. It would mean that maybe Jill Harth and others are going to have Allred representing them and bringing them out for a press conferences announcing a suit against Trump for ... who knows? Battery? Assault?  That's what he described in the video.

He makes people far and wide sign these very binding NDAs, but maybe Allred has found some women they wouldn't have applied to or who are willing to stand up to him anyway. Hope the rumor is true! That would be amazing!

[HumblePi]

Starting my diatribe with an old quote; "The only enemy that's more dangerous than a man with unlimited resources is a man with absolutely nothing to lose."

To truly understand this man you have to begin who he's aggressive against. It's not only Hillary Clinton because she's his adversary. The highest electedRepublican in America, Paul Ryan has suddenly been demonized by Donald Trump. The list goes on, John McCain, George H.W.Bush, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Christine Todd Whitman, Tom Ridge, Mel Martinez. There's no end to the list and these are all REPUBLICANS. Hillary Clinton just happens to be standing directly in his line of fire, but it's absolute truth that any one of these prominent Republicans opposing Donald Trump would be in his line of fire if any one of them opposed him in any way. He would mow them down in a heartbeat. This man has abandoned every moral and religious ethic that has been embedded at the core of the Republican creed for generations. Do you think that Donald Trump will suddenly change who he is and be loyal to anyone but himself? Will he fight for what's right and not just what's best for Donald Trump?

This election has morphed into something far beyond Trump Vs. Clinton. This has become an issue of whether the Republican party will be obliterated or will it be able to survive. The Republican Party has existed since 1854, One hundred and sixty-two years of party loyalty is being systemically destroyed from within. Now, I don't know many Democrats that would have any problem with that at all. But if I were a Republican that believed in the party and yet was participating in the implosion of that very party, I would be questioning my motives.

[Moose135]

8 minutes ago, heatherrrrz said:

There is no way a President can just repeal your second amendment right.

Apparently Trump, and many of his supporters, don't understand how the Constitution works.

[Notwisconsin]

That was quick;

https://www.amazon.com/Pussy-Reclamation-Regena-Thomashauer/dp/1401950248/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1476305490&sr=1-1&keywords=Pussy

Edited October 12, 2016 by Notwisconsin

[Kromm]

5 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

I was actually a registered Republican until a couple weeks ago (I switched to No Party, which more accurately reflects my voting patterns). I have been watching Donald Trump in popular culture for a long time and I find him repulsive on every level. Believe me, I never thought 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 1 year ago, that I'd be willingly voting for Hillary Clinton. That said, you are of course entitled to your positive opinion of Donald Trump as much as anyone else is entitled to their negative opinions. My question would be, was he your first choice? Because I know I would have preferred a more disciplined and experienced Republican candidate.

IMO the late in the game Trump supporters (the ones still left) boil down to two categories.

The people who believe he embodies a force for change (ignoring his inability to actually "change" anything in a sane way).

The people who are (unfortunately) lying to themselves that whatever opinions they have about the prime importance of changing the Supreme Court (to undo Gay marriage and Abortion rulings, and to prevent future gun control rulings) overrule any concerns about the man who theoretically might be able to do that (theoretically, because he's SO unstable and SO unwilling to work with other Republicans that who KNOWS what his Court appointments would actually look like).

I can understand the motivations... both of them actually... but they both seem to rely on people deluding themselves about Trump's actual sanity, his actual intentions, and his actual abilities. And a gigantic misunderstanding about how government works. We don't live in a monarchy. Our government inherently relies on cooperation, diplomacy, and alliances. And Trump doesn't believe in any of that. He's inherently a disaster, because he will stab his own allies in the back on a moment's notice, the moment he has a temper tantrum, doesn't actually care about most of the deeper issues (because he's really only in it for himself) and has fostered this destructive delusion that being a "maverick" is a workable mode of governance. 

Worst case, he destroys us in a nuclear war. I've seen endless net posts about how that's "not possible" and how there are "safeguards" because Trump would have to justify his actions to whatever small amount of congress was left alive afterwards. So okay, let's say he can't do that. He can still destroy the trust in the US of every ally we have on the planet. Here's a man who can't hold his temper for even a single day after someone "wrongs" him. We've seen the proof of it. And he's supposed to sit down at negotiation tables with people who by their very definition will be adversaries, but ones you have to be NICE to. Put the cherry on top that he's proven he doesn't know even basic things about nuclear policy, geopolitics, or any part of the economy past how to fuck with tax codes and bankruptcies?  Yeah.  Smart choice. Only not.  If he won the Republicans would "rule" over a smoking ruin of a country, Trump would continue to backstab anyone in the party who didn't kowtow to any whim he had, and his appointments would all be stupid at best and destructive at worst. 

[atomationage]

5 minutes ago, heatherrrrz said:

There is no way a President can just repeal your second amendment right. 

Drumpf supporters don't know that, or need to use it as a talking point anyway.  I call the second amendment the militia amendment, because that's what it's about, clearly, not ambiguously:

Quote

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[HumblePi]

1 minute ago, Kromm said:

IMO the late in the game Trump supporters (the ones still left) boil down to two categories.

The people who believe he embodies a force for change (ignoring his inability to actually "change" anything in a sane way).

The people who are (unfortunately) lying to themselves that whatever opinions they have about the prime importance of changing the Supreme Court (to undo Gay marriage and Abortion rulings, and to prevent future gun control rulings) overrule any concerns about the man who theoretically might be able to do that (theoretically, because he's SO unstable and SO unwilling to work with other Republicans that who KNOWS what his Court appointments would actually look like).

I can understand the motivations... both of them actually... but they both seem to rely on people deluding themselves about Trump's actual sanity, his actual intentions, and his actual abilities. And a gigantic misunderstanding about how government works. We don't live in a monarchy. Our government inherently relies on cooperation, diplomacy, and alliances. And Trump doesn't believe in any of that. He's inherently a disaster, because he will stab his own allies in the back on a moment's notice, the moment he has a temper tantrum, doesn't actually care about most of the deeper issues (because he's really only in it for himself) and has fostered this destructive delusion that being a "maverick" is a workable mode of governance. 

Worst case, he destroys us in a nuclear war. I've seen endless net posts about how that's "not possible" and how there are "safeguards" because Trump would have to justify his actions to whatever small amount of congress was left alive afterwards. So okay, let's say he can't do that. He can still destroy the trust in the US of every ally we have on the planet. Here's a man who can't hold his temper for even a single day after someone "wrongs" him. We've seen the proof of it. And he's supposed to sit down at negotiation tables with people who by their very definition will be adversaries, but ones you have to be NICE to. Put the cherry on top that he's proven he doesn't know even basic things about nuclear policy, geopolitics, or any part of the economy past how to fuck with tax codes and bankruptcies?  Yeah.  Smart choice. Only not.  If he won the Republicans would "rule" over a smoking ruin of a country, Trump would continue to backstab anyone in the party who didn't kowtow to any whim he had, and his appointments would all be stupid at best and destructive at worst. 

There are those people that pretend they don't have a problem with Muslims, Blacks, Asians or Mexicans. On the streets they will be nice, they will smile and nod, but once they're sitting at their tables in private with nobody watching or listening they'll unleash the venom because at their own table, political correctness goes out the window. Haters hide it when they're outside so they don't get into trouble and don't show that they're prejudiced in any way. That's why Trump supporters follow Donald Trump, because they don't have to pretend anymore and don't have to hide their hatred and venom for when they're in private conversation. They're haters and want to be haters openly and without apologies, they want to be able to have their ignorance openly and to the fullest extent. They want to behave as Donald Trump behaves which is incorrectly and dangerous. The open hatred of others is completely liberating for them.

[ChiCricket]

Mr. Trump, what do I tell my kids?

"I have five children, and in the not-too-distant future they will be responsible for running families, and businesses, and yes, even deciding the direction of our country. With five kids, the chances that they will ALL grow up to think as I do are pretty slim, and that’s ok with me. My job isn’t to indoctrinate them, but rather to teach them to gather information and make their own decisions.

But my job is also to protect them, and this is where my problem lies.

Lately, the thing that I’ve had to protect them from the most, is you.

I’m used to monitoring the language of the music my kids listen to. I’m used to looking up movies to make sure they are appropriate for children to watch and filtering the Internet so my kids don’t stumble across something gruesome or pornographic.

What I’m not accustomed to is watching a presidential candidate speak, all the while keeping my finger on the mute button."

(Complete post at link)

http://www.lifeinthecircus.com/mr-trump-what-do-i-tell-my-kids/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Edited October 12, 2016 by ChiCricket
hate the word "kiddos" LOL

[NewDigs]

23 minutes ago, Padma said:

 

Someone here mentioned Gloria Allred might be getting involved. (Sorry I can't seem to find your post. :( ). If so, that is GREAT news. It would mean that maybe Jill Harth and others are going to have Allred representing them and bringing them out for a press conferences announcing a suit against Trump for ... who knows? Battery? Assault?  That's what he described in the video.

 

 

I have gotten so tired of Allred jumping on everyone's bandwagon but this? Go Gloria!

20 minutes ago, atomationage said:

Drumpf supporters don't know that, or need to use it as a talking point anyway.  I call the second amendment the militia amendment, because that's what it's about, clearly, not ambiguously:

 

20 minutes ago, atomationage said:

Quote

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And I count myself as one who thinks the Supreme Court overreached with their last 2nd Amendment decision. Like the Citizens United decision.

 I don't think all of the pro-gun people think of their militias as being supportive of the established military so at what point does my neighbor's militia become my foe?

But guns taken away? Never happen. Most are asking simply for better background checks and the closing of the gunshow loophole. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by NewDigs

[atomationage]

There's now a Second Amendment forum in this same section, to keep that discussion separate.

[ChiCricket]

9 minutes ago, ChiCricket said:

Oops.double post

Edited October 12, 2016 by ChiCricket

[ruby24]

Trump has gone totally off the rails on the stump, saying all kinds of crazy shit like he was back in August. One of the things he said today though, struck me. He said about Hillary "believe me, the last thing I want to do is invade her space."

Guys, he's THIS close to calling her ugly. I think he wants to really badly, given his obsession with women's looks and how in his mind, that's the worst thing you can say about any woman, because that's the only part of a woman worth anything.

How can ANY woman vote for this monster?

[ClareWalks]

I will concede this: I can understand why people would vote for Trump. Maybe they side more with Republican ideals generally; maybe they hate HRC; maybe they really think Trump is best for the economy and they are economy voters. 

What I don't, can't, understand is how anyone can LIKE Trump. Like, actually LIKE him. I can see "ugh, he's a shithead, but I'll vote for him anyway," but I do not get the love.

[Kromm]

34 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

There are those people that pretend they don't have a problem with Muslims, Blacks, Asians or Mexicans. On the streets they will be nice, they will smile and nod, but once they're sitting at their tables in private with nobody watching or listening they'll unleash the venom because at their own table, political correctness goes out the window. Haters hide it when they're outside so they don't get into trouble and don't show that they're prejudiced in any way. That's why Trump supporters follow Donald Trump, because they don't have to pretend anymore and don't have to hide their hatred and venom for when they're in private conversation. They're haters and want to be haters openly and without apologies, they want to be able to have their ignorance openly and to the fullest extent. They want to behave as Donald Trump behaves which is incorrectly and dangerous. The open hatred of others is completely liberating for them.

Sure. But maybe that's more bundle-able under a term like "Immigration and Security", and that perhaps falls under the even larger umbrella of "people who believe he embodies a force for change". Nothing in that says it has to be a "good" or "fair" change by all of our estimations. For some people it will be positive hopes of change, and for others it will be as dark as the version you suggest.

There are people who believe he can actually build a huge fucking wall that's actually legally, physically and financially impossible (legally, because much of the land needed would actually have to be seized from thousands of people, physically, because the land isn't necessarily stable enough in all parts, and financially because not only is the "Mexico can be forced to pay for it" thing impossible, but the cost projections for such a wall literally went up by 2 billion dollars in each speech Donald mentioned it, and even the last time he did was WAY too low compared to reality).

This is what we are dealing with overall in microcosm. Vague or outright impossible claims, often self-contradictory, and often changing day by day. So that's why the "hope for change" stuff is so sad here. Because it's held together with really weak glue.  Ironically the people with the more hate-ery motivations will be the only ones likely to get what they want, while the ones with better motives who simply choose to believe a liar are the ones who will be the most betrayed.

But the people who are "worse" in this situation, IMO, aren't the people who are still with him because of any delusions of overall societal change, but who are more tunnel focused on the Supreme Court. Who are literally prioritizing future rulings over guns, fetuses and marriage licences via the vague hope that a huge, lying, selfish orange buffoon like Trump can change that court and those rulings over what else the man brings to the situation. 

Make no mistakes. Hillary Clinton is a slimeball. In a hundred ways. But she's a typical politician, and ultimately controllable because she responds to public opinion. She can and should be watchdogged. But Donald J. Trump is totally uncontrollable. He doesn't care about public opinion. He doesn't care about the law, or in most cases normal standards of decency. He can't be shamed into anything, and if he got his claws into actual governmental power, the only way he'd be gotten out would be via full impeachment and criminal conviction. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Kromm

[ruby24]

You are far more forgiving than me. If you know how bad he is and you vote for him anyway...I just can't accept that. The man is an authoritarian. He's against everything this country stands for.

[NewDigs]

14 minutes ago, Kromm said:

But the people who are "worse" in this situation, IMO, aren't the people who are still with him because of any delusions of overall societal change, but who are more tunnel focused on the Supreme Court. Who are literally prioritizing future rulings over guns, fetuses and marriage licences via the vague hope that a huge, lying, selfish orange buffoon like Trump can change that court and those rulings over what else the man brings to the situation.

And what's even worse, imho, is that if/when he doesn't win, this country is left with a fairly large segement of the voting population who think the elections are rigged and they wuz robbed. 

And not only were they robbed, in their minds, but now satan is their overlord and it's time for the don't-tread-on-me militia. The anger...

The Tea Party worried me. Failed Trump supporters terrify me.

Edited October 12, 2016 by NewDigs

[needschocolate]

Trump said that he would not want to be in a foxhoel with any of them the republicans who have withdrawn their support.  I immediately thought that they wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with him either.  Could you imagine being in a foxhole with Trump? He would be yelling all the time, drawing the attention of the enemy.  Then there's the constant complaining "Why do you get the south side of the foxhole?" Your K-rations looks bigger than mine!"  Add in the lying and denials and blaming and bragging.  And foxholes aren't very big - the way he talks with his hands - he'd end up poking someone's eyes out.

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

That's another thing.  Drumpf keeps saying, "oh, it was 11 years ago, I was younger then."  

He was 59 at the time.  That is plenty old enough to know better.  But rules that apply to others don't apply to him.  

1 hour ago, backformore said:

Donald Trump's campaign started with "Let's take America back"  (from the Black guy)  that last part was understood, not spoken.

Everytime I hear him say he wants to make America great again, I add the part he is leaving out '...for rich, white, prejudiced men"

[cpcathy]

The only people who really shouldn't be afraid for their rights are white, straight males, with a side of wealthy!

[HunterHunted]

2 hours ago, Padma said:

I'm pretty upset with press coverage of the townhall. Remember how Marco Rubio got pilloried for a week--basically it ended his primary chances--for repeating his phrase about Obama 3 or 4 times, in appropriate context, but a repetition?  Trump answered at least 3 questions on Sunday with talking points about ISIS when he was asked about health care reform...humanitarian aid....and his finances.  He CONSTANTLY went to irrelevant talking points when asked about something else. Yet the press largely ignores it while something much more minor was a big deal with Rubio.  I don't get it.

Anyway, I enjoyed this from Huffington Post because it's like Jeopardy--see his answer and try to guess the question:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/can-you-guess-the-question-based-on-trumps-response_us_57fbed6be4b072c9c2e22b66?

His laziness and willful ignorance is galling. Ken Bone asked a question about energy and renewable energy and Trump answered with nonsense about manufacturing and American manufacturing jobs going overseas.

For all of the faults of the other Republican primary candidates, you knew that most of them weren't blindly blabbering about subjects with no preparation. Rick Perry, who I've had occasion to work with, is a stunningly lazy candidate, but some of that was born out of the situation in Texas where there were no real challengers in the state. He hasn't had to be a disciplined candidate in a long while. However, Trump is so lazy, undisciplined, and clueless about how government is meant to run that he makes Rick Perry look like a constitutional scholar.

In 2008, I was actually working for a Texas Republican politician. Our entire office was so horrified by Sarah Palin's staggering ignorance that the majority of us voted for Obama or didn't vote in the presidential election. Sarah Palin was a governor and at least had a clue. 

By constantly covering his every gaffe and provocative bombastic quip, the press made Trump's candidacy more legitimate than it ever had a right to be. He only started buying advertising in the last 3 or so months. I'm sure the last time a major candidate was 6 months away from the election and spent only a million on ads was probably 50 years ago.

Besides not covering him in the news, what really needed to happen was another Republican candidate to just out Trump Trump. One of them, when they realized they couldn't win, should have trolled him up until the convention. They could have had some intermediaries reach out to comedians for jokes to pump up their material. It should have been burn after burn after burn. When he's saying shit like he knows more about ISIS than the generals do, another candidate should have clapped back that the only reason Donald knows anything about ISIS is because he thought ISIS was a contestant in the Miss Universe pageant. Or Donald knows a ton about ISIS because he loves to admire people and organizations that are profoundly and fundamentally opposed to American values and freedom. He's praised Putin, Mussolini, Kim Jong Un, and Saddam Hussein. Can Donald name one non dictator that he admires? And he can't list his daughter that he wants to bang or anyone he found in two Corinthians, which is the whole ballgame.

Edited October 12, 2016 by HunterHunted
correct misquote

[zxy556575]

I'm a little surprised that more lewd comments haven't been released, or more accusers come forward. On the other hand, I can't blame any women he's groped for staying silent because it wouldn't just be putting themselves on blast like with Tiger Woods -- it's the genuine fear that Trump would come after them, in court, online, in speeches, and even with their physical safety.

I have to give journalists a bit of a break on the accusations of not standing up to Trump when he's a guest on or calls into their shows, because he simply doesn't allow it. He repeats his lies and doubles down when challenged. He will not admit any wrongdoing or make a single concession in any argument, and it all becomes pointless.

Quote

Some say that Trump is the guy people with lots of grievances attach themselves to.

Imagined grievances, sure. Like the scary "others" who are taking "our" jobs and overrunning the borders to kill us.

I don't for a second believe any Republicans who say they're voting for Trump only because they despise HRC. They would vote for Trump regardless of which Democrat he was running against.

Ken Bone has said he's undecided because he doesn't want to see hard-won equal rights dismantled under Trump but feels that Trump would benefit him economically. HOW, EXACTLY?! I haven't see anyone ask him for specifics.

[ClareWalks]

11 minutes ago, lordonia said:

Ken Bone has said he's undecided because he doesn't want to see hard-won equal rights dismantled under Trump but feels that Trump would benefit him economically. HOW, EXACTLY?! I haven't see anyone ask him for specifics.

Wow. It's amazing that someone who is getting such public attention at this moment would say something so selfish-sounding. "I would hate to see civil rights go by the wayside...but what's going to put a bit more cash in MY pocket?"

[madmaverick]

7 minutes ago, lordonia said:

I have to give journalists a bit of a break on the accusations of not standing up to Trump when he's a guest on or calls into their shows, because he simply doesn't allow it. He repeats his lies and doubles down when challenged. He will not admit any wrongdoing or make a single concession in any argument, and it all becomes pointless.

I am sorry I cannot give most of the American media a break in not subjecting Trump to serious scrutiny.  He still has it far too easy by Brit standards.  He should have been subjected to grilling after grilling from reporters.  He should have been challenged hard on every one of his lies, with the actual facts thrown in his face immediately for a response.  He hasn't been asked enough hard hitting questions, and he shouldn't have been allowed to get away with non answers.  Reporters need to put him on the spot and get an answer out of him either way.  If it's BS, then call it BS straight away.  

And I'm so tired of the false equivalence from the media for so much of the campaign.  

The media needs to do some serious soul searching when it's all over and examine if it sold away its soul for clicks. 

[atomationage]

43 minutes ago, needschocolate said:

"Why do you get the south side of the foxhole?" Your K-rations looks bigger than mine!"  Add in the lying and denials and blaming and bragging.  And foxholes aren't very big - the way he talks with his hands - he'd end up poking someone's eyes out.

I can't stop laughing at this.

[HunterHunted]

Trump would say something outrageous and/or incendiary. The press would cover it and reach out to his campaign to explain his statement (as decent journalists would normally do). Trump and his surrogates would give dozens of interviews doubling down on his incendiary soundbites. So by saying some dumb insane thing, he would end up with 5 hours (just guessing) of his crazy pants statements repeated on tv and he never had to pay a cent to do so. I don't even know if it was intentional. 

Unfortunately, the last 20 years has been disastrous for American journalism and for the American population's understanding of what journalism is. People seem to think it's all opinion and no investigation into the underlying truth. Additionally the last 20 years has been disastrous for Americans' understanding of what the government does and how it's supposed to function. 

[atomationage]

The latest

about Emily West:

Quote

A transcript of an episode from the ninth season of The Apprentice, obtained by the Huffington Post,

“I assume you’re gonna leave this off, don’t put this s*** on the show, you know. But her skin, her skin sucks, OK?” he said, according to the transcript of the unaired scene. “I mean her skin, she needs some serious f***in’ dermatology.”

In a statement to the Huffington Post, Hope Hicks said the campaign “can’t comment on an alleged transcript.” Reportedly there’s “far worse” stuff in other transcripts (the Mark Burnett-produced reality show apparently used a transcription service).

West told Rolling Stone that the remarks from Trump weren’t all that shocking. “Obviously, I was hurt and kind of grossed out, but it didn’t surprise me to be honest,” West said. “I feel really bad for him, because he doesn’t know how the human heart works. You can’t say things like that to people and then one day expect to win; your character is going to show up.” West added that she’d “really like to believe in good character when it comes to voting” for president. “I don’t ever expect to vote for a character,” she said.

[Jordan27]

2 hours ago, Advance35 said:

As I've said I'm not thrilled with Hillary either, but you don't harbor any concern about Trump's temper?  

Someone told me he would have people around to advise him and keep him in check (as it were), but His revolving Campaign Managers seem to get worst and worst.   One he had to fire because he had unsavory and financial ties to a combative foreign power and his replacement is a new-era white supremacist.  I am honestly asking, do you think a Trump presidency would be ok for minorities?  Or the Middle Class and the Poor, considering pretty much every working analyst says you will need to be part of the 1% to benefit from Trump's Tax plans.

Have you seen what some Secret Service Agents said about Hillary's temperament.  She cusses like a sailor and is rude and arrogant.

The racist stuff is nonsense.  Liberals pander to them every election and nothing changes. 

Yep, Trump would be good for minorities and the poor.  Cutting taxes on business creates jobs.  And how are the poor supposed to benefit directly from tax cuts when they don't pay any taxes?

You are spouting liberal talking points.  Think about it a little.

2 hours ago, cpcathy said:

Obama did not take away anyone's guns while he was President and neither will Hillary. The NRA makes sure of that.

Didn't say that.  Said they would go after the 2nd amendment. 

[Jordan27]

2 hours ago, backformore said:

Trump and pal  (convicted sex offender)  Epstein are being sued by a woman who said she was raped by them when she was 13:

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/11/status-conference-in-trump-lawsuit/

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Yet Trump can cast stones at Bill Clinton!

The funny thing is that Hillary and the libs started it and Trump just fired back.  Clinton and Hillary are far, far worse.

[Advance35]

Quote

Someone here mentioned Gloria Allred might be getting involved. (Sorry I can't seem to find your post. :( ). If so, that is GREAT news. It would mean that maybe Jill Harth and others are going to have Allred representing them and bringing them out for a press conferences announcing a suit against Trump for ... who knows? Battery? Assault?  That's what he described in the video.

You Go Glo

I haven't heard much about this woman but the nerve wracking of this election and with saboteurs out there like Wikileaks and that nasty individual calling himself a journalist and plotting whatever, I feel like breaking into the song "I need a hero."   She's after additional "Apprentice" footage.

Quote

Worst case, he destroys us in a nuclear war. I've seen endless net posts about how that's "not possible" and how there are "safeguards" because Trump would have to justify his actions to whatever small amount of congress was left alive afterwards.

GoT reference again but it's like being Margaery Tyrell trying to deal with the Faith Militant.

Quote

I am sorry I cannot give most of the American media a break in not subjecting Trump to serious scrutiny.  He still has it far too easy by Brit standards.

I can't give them a break and I have nothing to compare them too.  Is it hard for an American to matriculate to Europe (only partly kidding).

Quote

Trump would say something outrageous and/or incendiary. The press would cover it and reach out to his campaign to explain his statement (as decent journalists would normally do). Trump and his surrogates would give dozens of interviews doubling down on his incendiary soundbites. So by saying some dumb insane thing, he would end up with 5 hours (just guessing) of his crazy pants statements repeated on tv and he never had to pay a cent to do so. I don't even know if it was intentional. 

I still feel like they humored him for ratings.  They are only now starting to see the potential danger here.  Just praying it's not to late and they should be too because I think the Media is going to be one of the first to feel his wrath.

[Jordan27]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Our government got pretty big under Republicans, especially the Defense Dept., with no plan to pay for it. (Think about that totally unnecessary Iraq war.) It's Democrats who are more economically sound. What's that old Truman saying? "If you want to live like a Republican, you've got to vote for a Democrat."

21 trillion debt?  Under Obama.  So much for sound economic policy.

[BuckeyeLou]

8 hours ago, 33kaitykaity said:

I can't remember where I heard this, but the scuttlebutt is bringing all of Bill Clinton's accusers to the debate was the son-in-law's brilliant idea.  

Yes, I read that Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law wanted Bill Clinton's accusers to sit in the Family box!  He was denied by the men who run the Debate Commission.  And what do Jared&Ivanka think of all the Anti-Semitic remarks made by Trump fans?!

[atomationage]

Kushner is from another real estate family (wiki):

Quote

He is principal owner of the real estate holding and development company Kushner Properties and the newspaper publishing company the New York Observer. He is the son of American real estate developer Charles Kushner...From 2007 to 2016, he spent at least $7 billion on New York real estate. In 2007, at age 26, he made the most expensive single-building property purchase in US history. In 2011, Kushner brought in Vornado Realty Trust as a 50% equity partner in the ownership of the building.

On his dad, Charles Kushner(wiki):

Quote

Charles Kushner (born May 16, 1954) is an American real estate developer, political fundraiser and philanthropist. In 2005, he was convicted in federal court for making illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering

From Yahoo "Entertainment" News, no I'm not kidding:

Quote

Rev. Kenneth Copeland, who sits on Donald Trump’s evangelical advisory board, urged viewers of his television program to vote, saying that would be held accountable if they don’t. “You’re going to be guilty of murder,” the charismatic preacher said on the program. “You’re going to be guilty of an abomination of God. You’re going to be guilty for every baby that’s aborted from this election forward.”

Edited October 12, 2016 by atomationage
colonic

[Jordan27]

2 hours ago, HumblePi said:

Starting my diatribe with an old quote; "The only enemy that's more dangerous than a man with unlimited resources is a man with absolutely nothing to lose."

To truly understand this man you have to begin who he's aggressive against. It's not only Hillary Clinton because she's his adversary. The highest electedRepublican in America, Paul Ryan has suddenly been demonized by Donald Trump. The list goes on, John McCain, George H.W.Bush, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Christine Todd Whitman, Tom Ridge, Mel Martinez. There's no end to the list and these are all REPUBLICANS. Hillary Clinton just happens to be standing directly in his line of fire, but it's absolute truth that any one of these prominent Republicans opposing Donald Trump would be in his line of fire if any one of them opposed him in any way. He would mow them down in a heartbeat. This man has abandoned every moral and religious ethic that has been embedded at the core of the Republican creed for generations. Do you think that Donald Trump will suddenly change who he is and be loyal to anyone but himself? Will he fight for what's right and not just what's best for Donald Trump?

This election has morphed into something far beyond Trump Vs. Clinton. This has become an issue of whether the Republican party will be obliterated or will it be able to survive. The Republican Party has existed since 1854, One hundred and sixty-two years of party loyalty is being systemically destroyed from within. Now, I don't know many Democrats that would have any problem with that at all. But if I were a Republican that believed in the party and yet was participating in the implosion of that very party, I would be questioning my motives.

Too funny.  We have the House, the Senate and the Governorships.  We are in a heated battled to take the Presidency.

If anyone is in trouble, it's the Dems.  You have Hillary, an awful candidate and you had an old socialist to challenge her.

Trump is a fighter unlike the recent Republicans in Congress. 

All the pontification about the end of the Republican Party considering you can't even get one decent challenger to Hillary is silly.

We had 16 to Trump.  Who is running for the Dem nomination in 2020 if Hillary loses?

[mustbekarma]

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

But the people who are "worse" in this situation, IMO, aren't the people who are still with him because of any delusions of overall societal change, but who are more tunnel focused on the Supreme Court. Who are literally prioritizing future rulings over guns, fetuses and marriage licences via the vague hope that a huge, lying, selfish orange buffoon like Trump can change that court and those rulings over what else the man brings to the situation. 

I live in an area that is overwhelmingly populated by Republicans, and the Supreme Court issues comes up in Facebook and in person conversations all the time.  Conservatives want conservative Supreme Court justices nominated, and Trump would give them that in comparison to Hillary. Trump has claimed he's pro life, and that's honestly the number one reason that Trump is getting support by many of the people I know. They will never vote for a candidate that supports choice. Or gay marriage, for that matter. So as long as Trump promises to repeal gay marriage and Roe v. Wade by appointing justices who would support those stances, people in this area will vote for him no matter how repugnant they find him on a personal level. The ones who are really offended by both candidates are either not voting or deciding who else they could vote for.

Abortion is one issue that many of the people I know won't budge on. You should hear the lectures my mom gives me on voting for Hillary who is supporting killing babies.

[Jordan27]

2 hours ago, HumblePi said:

There are those people that pretend they don't have a problem with Muslims, Blacks, Asians or Mexicans. On the streets they will be nice, they will smile and nod, but once they're sitting at their tables in private with nobody watching or listening they'll unleash the venom because at their own table, political correctness goes out the window. Haters hide it when they're outside so they don't get into trouble and don't show that they're prejudiced in any way. That's why Trump supporters follow Donald Trump, because they don't have to pretend anymore and don't have to hide their hatred and venom for when they're in private conversation. They're haters and want to be haters openly and without apologies, they want to be able to have their ignorance openly and to the fullest extent. They want to behave as Donald Trump behaves which is incorrectly and dangerous. The open hatred of others is completely liberating for them.

Just typical race card liberal policies.  I am not racist nor I have met anyone at a Republican rally that was.

This is used because liberals won't admit that we don't like their candidates because they are liberals and promote liberalism.  That's what we don't like.

2 hours ago, ClareWalks said:

I will concede this: I can understand why people would vote for Trump. Maybe they side more with Republican ideals generally; maybe they hate HRC; maybe they really think Trump is best for the economy and they are economy voters. 

What I don't, can't, understand is how anyone can LIKE Trump. Like, actually LIKE him. I can see "ugh, he's a shithead, but I'll vote for him anyway," but I do not get the love.

Those on the right feel the same about Hillary.  

Edited October 12, 2016 by Jordan27