Trump - Page 3

[Agilemind]

impotence into abstinence

In Trump's case reverse-Oedipus complex into virility.

[Reverend Jim]

It's not worth starting a new thread and it is Trump related so...

I am so GD fed up with the media I could just scream. At least I could count on some substance from Trevor Noah (who is still nowhere as awesome as his predecessor) and Bill Maher. But Bill Maher's sorry excuse of an interview with Kellyanne Conway was the last straw. Why is it that all interviewers let their subjects just get away with not answering the questions - even the simple ones? It seemed that whenever an interviewer asks a Trump person a question (and this includes Trump) the answer is invariably

1. I think the larger issue is ...
2. How can you even ask that when Hillary Clinton ...

And that's not even counting the non-segues (typically Trump) to ISIS when the questions had nothing to do with ISIS.

Did anyone notice during the last debate when Trump said "why aren't you asking her about the emails?" when Hillary had just finished responding to a question about the emails?

What has happened to journalism?

And on the subject of debates, how about this for an idea. The moderator asks a question and says "you have two minutes to respond". Every time the opponent interrupts the speaker's clock gets reset to two minutes. Barring that, how about cutting the opponent's mic for those two minutes?

[AssertNull]

I'm not sure the mic cut idea has ever been done in a debate. Technologically it's no problem at all to rig a system where the moderator could cut power to a mike or have some the mic set up to some sort of chess clock type of thing where your mic and the clock are tied together and you get your two minutes, no more, no less, and it's impossible (well, diffficult) to interrupt because you won't have power to your mic. I can't imagine why the two sides couldn't agree on the rules and agree to how those rules should be enforced and who should act as referee, etc. Other than the ability to cut power to Trump's mic, nothing will stop a guy like him from interrupting and taking more than his share of time and claiming he's being persecuted when people hold him to the rules he agreed to. I think that behavior and the interrupting and the weird stalking-like behavior of him pacing menacingly around the stage turns off a lot of folks, particularly women, but certainly men too. His base likes it, but those "undecideds" probably don't.

I've seen Scarborough cut the mic on Trump before. O'Reilly is infamous for it (though not to Trump). Chris Matthews help his feet to the fire and wouldn't relent when Trump tried to dodge the question. Anderson Cooper did so in the debate. Matt Lauer did it to Hillary, but seemed to kowtow to Trump IMO. When he tries to dodge and reporters or anyone else hold their ground, it's guaranteed that he'll whine and cry about "biased" and "corrupt" media. I think the media is FINALLY not worrying about getting accused by him anymore and holding their ground more.

As for "Why aren't you asking Hillary about...?", as with most things Trump, everyone should know the tactic by now. It's the "Billy is breaking the rules too" defense. My view is you call him on it, point it out, do your job, and the American people will (hopefully) notice it and judge him on it. I view it as "He's being accused of X and given a chance to explain X. He's choosing to not defend himself on X and go after Hillary instead. Thus he probably is actually guilty of X." I can't imagine I am alone in that. I still have faith that the American people as a whole are smart enough to see Trump's tactics for what they are. I don't imagine he's FOOLING too many people. Whether they CARE is another issue.

[Agilemind]

I was so sad when Kathleen Petty left "The House" on CBC Radio, she is the first and last interviewer I've ever seen actually get politicians to answer her questions and honestly admit when they didn't know the answer. She deserves a fucking medal.

But as a result of that she could rarely get "big shot" politicians to come on her show. Which is the problem. Modern journalist have to suck up to politicians because journalists are starting to need politicians more than politicians need the journalists. Journalists need politicians to agree to be on the show to get the ratings. Politicians don't need journalists to get their message out - there are bloggers, social media, memes, person websites etc.... who will all spread a politicians message with minimal or no critical analysis.

The internet is killing journalism.

[Reverend Jim]

I was so sad when Kathleen Petty left "The House" on CBC Radio, she is the first and last interviewer I've ever seen actually get politicians to answer her questions and honestly admit when they didn't know the answer.

I don't know if you recall John Harvard - former TV journalist from Winnipeg then left for a career in Federal politics an an MP. He died a while back. He wasn't one to just accept a non-answer.

[AssertNull]

there are bloggers, social media, memes, person websites etc.... who will all spread a politicians message with minimal or no critical analysis.

There will always be journalists who hold peoples' feet to the fire and ask the tough questions and won't allow the diversion to talking points and spin. There will always be journalists who don't. Politicians and others who can't answer the tough questions will seek out the journalists who won't hold them accountable.

In the end it's up to the consumer/citizen, as it always has been. Anyone who wants to be informed and is willing to put in the effort and willing to view things with a critical eye will notice the obfuscation. Anyone who wants to take the easy way has the option, moreso now than ever, to find like-minded people and never challenge their own ideology. There are 7 billion people in the world. Chances are that at least a few of them will agree with you on every issue, no matter how ridiculous. The internet now allows these people to find each other.

In the old days, you could not be heard without a printing press, distribution, capital, so the powers that be had more of a monopoly on the press. There was freedom of the press, but if I did not have the connections/money to get printed and distributed, my voice would not be heard. Now anyone can start a blog, declare themselves a "journalist", and start blogging with no money down. If they are good, word gets out and their blog will be read by many people. That means that it's much harder to shut people up, which is a good thing. It also means that, since anyone can do it with no money and no connections and no skill, more people will do it as there is no one to enforce any "standards". There is no editor that I need to convince that my journalism is quality journalism, so standards are going to suffer and the amount of blatant nonsense is going to go way up as a result. Add to that the immediacy of journalism today and the fact taht they need to "fill" all that broadcast time and there simply is no TIME to do quality journalism for the networks. The journalist who fact-checks gets scooped. If a new accuser comes forward with an accusation against Trump or Clinton, a responsible journalist will try to ascertain the source's credibility, find corroboration or dissension to that viewpoint, and do all the other things you need to do to get the story right. By the time you've done all that, it's old news.

So it's up to the news consumer. The information is out there and the Kathleen Pettys are out there and it isn't hard to figure out who is like her and who is like Sean Hannity. In the 21st century, in a democracy with freedom of the press and the technology we have today, the public truly gets the leaders it deserves.

[Reverend Jim]

There seems little doubt now that Hillary Clinton will be your next president. The Donald has quite handily destroyed any chance of his winning. Judging by recent reports, he also seems to have destroyed his existing brand. His hotels are bleeding money as potential guests opt to stay anywhere but Trump properties. People are throwing away Trump-branded merchandise in protest and even Ivanka's clothing line has suffered as those hordes of women that Trump claims to respect "more than anyone" are choosing any other brand.

If speculations are correct, Trump will use the fascists and white nationalists that he has galvanized to launch a right-wing media empire where he can continue to spout his hateful rhetoric post-election. We can only hope that mainstream media will tire of him after November 8 and that advertisers will treat him the same way they now treat Rush Limbaugh.

[Reverend Jim]

By the way, a quick note to anyone considering not voting, or voting for a third party...

You may think you are being forced to choose between two evils, and you want to lodge a protest vote instead to ease your conscience, but in the end, one of those two people are going to be president no matter what you do. The only way to do your part to ensure that it isn't Trump is to vote for Hillary. If you do anything else and Trump wins then you have to bear part of the blame. You cannot claim "it's not my fault because I didn't participate." That would be nothing more than moral cowardice, plain and simple.

[AssertNull]

I'm voting for Hillary, or rather, against Trump. It's a lesser of two evils vote and if it was just about anyone else besides Trump, I'd consider a protest vote. I might do a protest vote for Congress just to somehow register my displeasure at these two parties' choices.

I think Trump is done. As you mentioned, he's become too toxic to do business with, and I would guess that would extend to him starting a cable network. Stranger things have happened, but I imagine he'll go into fringe obscurity like Sarah Palin. He got way too close to success for comfort though.

But while HE is done, I imagine more polished and more dangerous demagogues have been quietly taking notes behind the scenes on what worked and what didn't work, and they're just getting started. Someone may try a 2020 Redux.

[Agilemind]

If speculations are correct, Trump will use the fascists and white nationalists that he has galvanized to launch a right-wing media empire where he can continue to spout his hateful rhetoric post-election.

Possible, it'll be interesting what would happen in the inevitable competition with FOX. Though I think the possibility of riots when Trump loses are a bigger problem in the short-term.

[AssertNull]

possibility of riots

The $64,000 question is how/whether Trump will concede. I see a few possibilities.

1. Concedes, as is the custom, and encourages his followers to accept/respect the results.
2. Does not concede, says the election was rigged, but makes it clear that he wants all opposition to the election results to be non-violent: legal challenges, boycotts, sit-ins, etc. Expressly calls for no insurrection, rioting, or violence of any kind.
3. Temper tantrum / whining / twitter meltdown, not really conceding, nor offering any guidance on what people should legitimately do about the "rigged" election.
4. Pays lip service to non-violence, but throws in some winks, dog-whistle calls to violence, like usual: "Boy, I hope there is no violence, but ya know, when people get ripped off, sometimes they lose their cool. That would be bad, but understandable. I hope it doesn't happen, but it probably will and it will be Hillary's fault if it does."
5. Unambiguously says that he does not concede, he actually won, but Hillary stole the election and all patriotic Americans should arm themselves and violently resist the illegal incoming Administration.

My crystal ball is broken and a lot of my recent predictions have been wrong, but I'm thinking 3 or 4, but more likely 3. I believe 5 has never been done in the history of the United States except for the Civil War. If he goes with 5, his option of re-starting his playboy billionaire hedonistic lifestyle or starting a new cable channel is zero. I also believe he's too big of a coward and too selfish to actually go with number 5. It takes guts and sacrifice that he doesn't have to really threaten to take on the entire US establishment and actually mean it. I hope he goes with number 1, or perhaps number 2, but I doubt it.

Whether anyone who might be gearing up to riot, start an insurrection, or God-Forbid start assassinating people gives a damn what Donald says after he loses is another $64,000 question.

[Reverend Jim]

Concedes, as is the custom...

I doubt this scenario will happen as we have seen that Trumpo never admits to having been beat.

Does not concede, says the election was rigged, but makes it clear that he wants all opposition to the election results to be non-violent...

I agree with the "does not concede" but not with the rest. Trump never makes anything clear when he knows he is talking publicly. He only hinted that the 2nd amendment people should shoot his opponent. Comments like "we'll see at the time" are cleverly spoken with plenty of wiggle room. And even on those rare occasions when he says something non-vague, he later says "don't you recognize sarcasm when you hear it?". Also, he has openly promoted violence at his rallies. Why not after Nov 8?

Temper tantrum / whining / twitter meltdown...

This does seem to be his default "go to" reaction.

Pays lip service to non-violence, but throws in some winks, dog-whistle calls to violence, like usual...

I think this is the most likely scenario.

Unambiguously says that he does not concede, he actually won, but Hillary stole the election and all patriotic Americans should arm themselves and violently resist the illegal incoming Administration.

This would probably get him arrested.

[Agilemind]

My prediction is #3 while the votes are coming in. As each state he thinks he "should" win is called for Hillary, I think he'll whine and threaten lawsuits, etc...

But assuming the results are as favourable for Hillary as the polls suggest (i.e. she wins by >5%) then I think he will concede though take a long time to do so (not till well after all the networks have called it) and make some self-promotional announcement at the same time - e.g. turning the Trump Foundation in the a political thing or that he's starting his own TV network.

Violence and riots aren't actually in his interest - one of his properties could be vandalized! - His refusal to admit he'll conceed is mostly him pandering to his base and a bit his pride. The only factor that could make him refuse to conceed is if he has grown to personally hate Hillary for beating him in at all the debates - that would lead to #4. It's so hard to tell with him what is honest hatred and what is mindless outrage just to get attention.

[Reverend Jim]

mostly him pandering to his base and a bit his pride

But mainly it is his way of keeping all of the media focus on him.

[AssertNull]

Donald Trump laid out his agenda for healing the nation at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, hallowed ground for a divided nation in crisis. Donald Trump wants to heal the nation. To that end, he spent the first several minutes of his momentous speech promising to sue all the women who were falsely accusing of sexual harassment the second he gets in office. At Gettysburg.

Some friends told me it was actually the most cogent serious policy speech he's ever given if you can get past the beginning part about how everyone is unfair to him and lying about him. I'll take their word for it since I can't get past that part.

[Reverend Jim]

Serious policy? Other than more tax cuts for the rich and throwing Hillary in jail, the only policy I have heard is "we're going to be looking into that".

[AssertNull]

If you go to donaldjtrump.com (perish the thought, but I did just for this), he actually lays out concrete steps of what he wants to do in a non-Twitter manner. If you knew nothing about him and judged him solely on his web entry for his Gettysburg speech, you could potentially conclude that Donald Trump was a serious candidate with serious ideas. I'm sure if you scratched the surface of his plan much, it would fall to pieces, but it at least looks somewhat thought-out.

I wonder who wrote that post? :)

[Agilemind]

Trump's "policies" for science earned him a whopping score of 7/100 by Scientific American. Though he does seem taken with water policy presumably to keep his golf courses green and hotel pools/fountains running.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/

[happygeek]

Not forgetting he has to feed his hair, that must take a lot of water.

[AssertNull]

Four more days. The pollsters are now giving him a 1 in 3 chance of winning. That's up from "slim to none" just a few short weeks ago.

Wikileaks just did its latest email dump. It's probably too late to actually vet them, which was the point of waiting this long. Just like with FBI Director Comey's latest reopening of the case. It just raises a big ugly mixed cloud of facts, rumors and innuendo and it's almost impossible to separate the smoke from the lies from the fire.

However, I do see a silver lining if Hillary's smart. Surely if they were actually keeping a health scandal secret, given how careless they've been about the e-mails, they would have sent worried cover-up e-mails about the best way to keep it hidden, and surely, if Wikileaks had uncovered these e-mails, they'd be in this last release. If there AREN'T any such e-mails, that would be evidence that she's fine and this has all been BS rumor-mongering from her enemies. She's been accused of hiding Parkinson's. Do a quick check to see if any of the new e-mails are covering up such a diagnosis. In the absence of that, say that "proves" she doesn't have Parkinson's (hey, it works for Trump. Fair play) and accuse Donald Trump of creating a fake rumor which has been proven false, and therefore ALL the scandal rumors are suspect. Basically the attorney tactic of impeaching a witness's credibility and asking the jury to ignore all the witness's accusations as a result.

[Agilemind]

She's been accused of hiding Parkinson's.

I'm 99% sure she doesn't have Parkinson's because Parkinson's isn't something you can hide since it affects motor neurons and has quite distinctive effects on walking - if she had it then there is plenty of video people could use to try and prove it, but since they haven't either (1) some educated people did look and found nothing or (2) all the people propagating the rumour have zero qualifications or knowledge to base the rumour on. Plus statistically Trump is 50% more likely to have Parkinson's than Hillary because his gender.

PS It's actually Trump for whom there is some evidence of mental insufficiency with a couple psychologist breaking their association's rules against commenting on the psychological state of public figures because their conscience demands that they warn the public about Trump.

accuse Donald Trump of creating a fake rumor

What good is that going to do? all the independent fact-checking organizations have already shown that Trump lies more than any other candidate for either nomination and lies several times more than Hillary in his speeches and the debates. Trump's supporters don't care about facts or they wouldn't support Trump.

[AssertNull]

What good is that going to do?

Good question. I'm not sure what it'll do, but I can't see it hurting. It's hard to believe anyone is still undecided, but she's still out their campaigning and defending herself against fake rumors, so she must feel there is some reason to do so. Maybe she and her surrogates can package it to the media as a talking point. It seems like a good argument to make to me. Will it cause the die-hard Trump supporters to question the "facts" that they believe? Doubtful. It MIGHT, however, persuade the folks who are voting AGAINST Hillary as opposed to FOR Trump. She's into the home stretch and she has to talk about SOMETHING and this gives her some ammo to fight back as opposed to strictly being on defense. Using the attorney example, the jury might be completely stacked against you and not listen, but you still try to make the best case you can. If it doesn't work, well at least you tried.

[Reverend Jim]

Trivia - the word “idiot” came from Ancient Athens and originally meant people who don’t care about or participate in public affairs or politics. For those people who are so uninformed (even willingly) that they are still undecided, they should skip to 06:15 of this video.

[Reverend Jim]

Apparently a meme has been floating around social media claiming that voters can “save time” and “avoid the line” by texting their votes for Hillary Clinton from home. Wonder how that got started?

[Reverend Jim]

I was going to post this in the Memorable Quotations thread but I think it is more appropriate here.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

― Edmund Burke.

[AssertNull]

Apparently a meme has been floating around social media claiming that voters can “save time” and “avoid the line” by texting their votes for Hillary Clinton from home. Wonder how that got started?

Well, Donald Trump said there was going to be election shenanigans and he was right. He just left out that his side was going to be the ones committing the shenanigans. Some of his "poll watchers" are accused of crossing the line between "watching" and "interfering" as far as asking people for ID, proof of citizenship, slowing things down, etc.

This country has been voting for over 200 years and it's been 50 years since we passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act and we still haven't gotten the kinks out regarding poll watching and who gets to ask for ID and voter intimidation. One of the reasons the US invaded Panama (supposedly) was that Noriega's people were blatantly intimidating people from voting against him and he therefore was an illegitimate, unelected leader. The US is constantly monitoring other countries' elections and threatening sanctions/invasions if they don't do it right. I sometimes wonder if we'd pass our own test.

[Agilemind]

there was going to be election shenanigans and he was right.

Yeah, there was a story of a Trump supporter being charged with trying to vote twice because she was convinced the election was going to be rigged - the inability of trump supporters to see the irony of their position is shocking.

[Reverend Jim]

An acquaintance emailed me recently. In the email she mentioned that if she were an American citizen she would be voting for Trump (she is a hard-core conservative). She also believes that Trump's pussy-grabbing comments are just locker room talk (although he was in a media bus talking with media people at the time) and made reference to his "inappropriate touching". I had to remind her that what she calls "inappropriate touching", the law calls "sexual assault". If Trump raped someone (as he has been accused of doing) perhaps she would refer to that as an involuntary sperm donation (with thanks to George Carlin).

[Reverend Jim]

Word of the Day

Kakistocracy: Government under the control of a nation's worst or least-qualified citizens.

[Reverend Jim]

I was reminded of this quote from the beginning of the Republican primaries...

Bernie Sanders is the president we need. Donald Trump is the president we deserve.

• Alec Baldwin