Trump

[rstrong]

Debate cheating accusations are inevitable. Bush II had similar bulges on the back of his jacket. (Not that the debate was a debate. No debating was allowed. ONLY pre-arranged questions and pre-canned answers, and no rebutting opponents'' answers.) Debate photos were used to accuse Romney of using a cheat sheet.

Not a debate, but Sarah Palin wrote crib notes on her hand for a couple interviews. The Republicans' choice to run the government in a crisis needed help remembering "Tax Cuts."

[Boatrocker]

The sillliest I've seen is the conspiracy theory that Hillary was being fed tips about pending questions via a "wire" . . .

And here's the best one yet from some brain-dead wingnut; posted in
Fellowship of the Minds
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

William Brandon Shanley | September 27, 2016 at 8:52 am

"It’s a lavaliere microphone power supply and connector under her jacket.."

"I don’t believe that was Hillary in debate. Do side by side comparisons with this Hillary and the one on 9/11 who collapsed or the one with her erratic eye movements from last week:

No moles on upper right side of mouth, no turkey neck, actress weighs 30 pound less, actress looks to be about 55 not 68, voice is higher pitched than Hillary’s, actress much more animated and lively than Hillary. The woman in debate is not a seriously ill woman, Hillary is. She showed no authentic emotional stress in situation. I’ve worked with actors many times and the woman in the debate is an imposter. We need someone to do a voice print analysis and side by side picture comparisons on a large monitor. Mine is only 7″ but I could see almost immediately that this was not Hillary Clinton in debate. All the answers were stock, well rehearsed, nothing of a special personal perspective that would reveal her 30 in public affairs. The actress has done an outstanding job studying Hillary, her movements, her attitudes, her voice. This woman I believe to be the same one who was on the plane in Greensboro. Look at any major actor who has appeared in a biopic mimicking the real person to understand how perfectly this can be accomplished. Although male, not female, the example that comes immediately to mind is Joaquin Phoenix playing Johnny Cash in Walk the Line and the actor singing Johnny Cash songs himself. The match is uncanny." William Shanley

Ah, conspiracy tards . . . .

[rstrong]

Ah, conspiracy tards . . . .

A perfect preview of the next eight years.

[Boatrocker]

Ah, conspiracy tards . . . .

A perfect preview of the next eight years.

Same as the last eight years.

[Vrede too]

GOP Blocks Probes Into Trump-Russia Ties
Russian hackers are apparently trying to mess with our elections. But congressional Republicans are crippling any investigations—while their probes of Hillary Clinton continue.

[JTA]

Are we living in some form of alternate timeline or simulation or something where our creators want to see how ridiculous they can make reality before we catch on?

GOP being buddy buddy with Russia. Donald Trump running for president. Memes from the cyber influencing an election.

Whaaaaat.

[O Really]

Why Trump "loves the poorly educated"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYpw2uAD9bg

Trump supporters defending ummm, "interesting" parts of the tax returns Donald released.

[Vrede too]

I caught part of a PBS documentary about Trump. It mentioned that his early mentor was the evil, disbarred and disgraced lawyer, Roy Cohn. That fits.

Also, what kind of idiotic, defensive and oh so delicate POTUS candidate allows himself to be baited into a 5-day (so far) debate with and about a Venezuelan beauty pageant winner from 20 years ago? Kim Jong-un doesn't wear a tiara . . . that we know of.

[rstrong]

Are we living in some form of alternate timeline or simulation or something where our creators want to see how ridiculous they can make reality before we catch on?

GOP being buddy buddy with Russia. Donald Trump running for president. Memes from the cyber influencing an election.

Whaaaaat.

Those of us outside the US have been wondering if this is some kind of practical joke on the rest of the planet. We look for signs that everything else is running normally, and we find things like:

America's War on Creepy Clowns leads to 12 arrests in various states

At least one death has been linked to a clown hoax.

[Vrede too]

... The first reports of unusual clown sightings surfaced late in August in Greenville County, S.C., with stories that the costumed figures were offering children money to lure them into the woods or were lingering in places and giving residents the heebie-jeebies....

I have no problem with bozophobia. Good for you, SC!

... At least one death has been linked to a clown hoax.

Pennsylvania clown sightings linked to stabbing, harassment

[Vrede too]

[Vrede too]

Fact Checkers Threaten To Boycott Next Presidential Debate Unless Trump Agrees To Use At Least One Fact

... “With Trump, there is no truth to what he says. The only thing you get from him is germs,” she said. “He appears to simply pull everything he says out of his rear end.”

PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism website, supported Candor’s comment. It reported that only 2.5 percent of Trump’s statements during the presidential campaign were rated “true.” More than 60 percent of his statements were rated either “false” or were considered “pants on fire” lies, which is the category given to statements without any basis in truth.

PolitiFact said Trump has made more “pants on fire” statements during the presidential campaigns than all other 21 presidential candidates combined. It awarded Trump its 2015 “Lie of the Year.” It could not designate one particular lie so it gave Trump the award for his body of work.

Trump responded angrily to the email from NOFACT. He called the threat “politically motivated.”

“The facts have a well-known liberal bias,” Trump tweeted.

Trump responded to the fact checkers’ demand in a separate tweet a minute later:

“Fact checkers are for losers. My supporters don’t want facts.”

Candor said she was encouraged by Trump’s response.

“What he said about his supporters is actually a fact,” she said.

[Vrede too]

If Trump Were Your Doctor

"Go to this link and donate now; even 5 dollars will help us buy air time!: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/p ... edcitizens"

[rstrong]

Trump is threatening to sue the Clinton campaign over the "nasty" ads they're running against him.

The truth is usually a pretty good defence against such lawsuits. But the ads consist almost entirely of Trump's own words, which rarely contain anything approaching the truth.

Well played, Trump. Well played.

[JTA]

It's fun watching my Trump supporting friends make excuses and rationalize away all of Trump's outrageous behavior, doing the same exact thing they often accuse liberals of doing.

[Vrede too]

Stick a gold plated, KFC-eating fork in the groper, he's finally done. The sistahs and "Her" win!

[O Really]

All politicians - at least the ones that generally get elected - are multi-faced, fact-shading, big-ego people who often are not the same in private life as they are in public. Most of us, the public, understand that if a person is supposed to represent everybody is his/her span of office that s/he can't literally and openly tell one group "I'm with you" and "the rest of you can pound sand." So even if you're a hard-core anti-abortion extremist, if you're going to get elected you still have to give some mumbo-jumbo about concern for "womens' health" or "medical standards" or "access to healthcare" or something. A successful candidate for office isn't going to give the same speech to a student group as s/he does for retirees. Everybody knows they're talking out of both sides of their mouth, but use ignore cognitive dissonance to hear what they want. At least that's the way it used to be until gerrymandering gave each loon his/her own electorate.

But the traditional system relies on some willingness by the public to accept what's on the surface and some pretense on the part of the candidate that meets public standards. If the candidate quits pretending and the public finds out something it didn't want to know, the wheels fall off. Good example is Gary Hart. A lot of people (including many of us who worked in his organization on behalf of McGovern) knew or strongly suspected he wasn't the most faithful husband in the world. But it took the press taunting leading to "Monkey Business" to bring him down. Of course, Hart is also interesting in his gaffe in NJ when he said his wife and he were campaigning in different place - she was lucky to be in California, he's in New Jersey. Said she told him she got to hold a koala and he got to hold toxic waste. He lost NJ after having been leading by 15. Idiot. But that pales in comparison to what people tolerate now out of Trump.

And that's what different about Trump. He's violated most standards of common decency, as well as political behaviour and he's still going strong. Undoubtedly many like him just because he's loud and obnoxious, giving the finger to standard norms. But to have any chance of winning, he's going to have to get people like suburban women and at least some with a modicum of education to vote for him. This type of stuff isn't helping. But hopefully he'll hang in there until the election. I think when all is tallied in real votes it'll be a landslide.

[JTA]

Trump says some messed up things about women.

Trump supporters counter by reminding us of Bills Clinton's infidelity, as if this is damning evidence against Hillary as well, explaining that if Hillary couldn't keep her husband in line, how can we expect her lead our country.

Whaaaaat?

[Vrede too]

The argument, not that I'm the one making it, is that Hillary enabled Bill and attacked his female "victims".

[O Really]

The argument, not that I'm the one making it, is that Hillary enabled Bill and attacked his female "victims".

I suspect the attack of the "victims" came about only when the "victim" tried to make some trouble. Hillary is if anything a pragmatic realist who undoubtedly knew Bill's dick was born under a wandering star. But as long as they avoided bimbo eruptions she'd put up with it. When a bimbo started talking about going public, Hillary made an effort to shut her down/discredit her, whatever. Maybe not an ideal family or political situation, but understandable. Keep in mind also that it wasn't Monica who complained or created that scandal. The instigator was Linda Lizard, without whom Monica just denied and had denied. Which brings up the issue of "enabler," I suppose. Is tolerating the same as enabling? I doubt Hillary served as pimp or even actively agreed to an "open" relationship. What's more, after they were out of the White House, she had no real political reason not to dump him and might have gained some fans for doing so. But she stuck with him and still does. Why do all the "conservatives" think that's a bad thing?