It's almost like catfishing the media with his Washington hotel somehow pissed them off.
You know, if constantly demonizing their reporters hadn't.
It's almost like catfishing the media with his Washington hotel somehow pissed them off.
You know, if constantly demonizing their reporters hadn't.
That's a military invasion by an established nation, though.
Its Russian supported insurgents and mercenaries.
It's not so much the crazy that-shit-is-never-going-to-pass laws that leave people up at night
People severely underestimate what Republicans would be willing to pass especially if they got a "mandate" from Trump winning. Margin of victory doesn't even matter.
A Mitch McConnell handed the presidency and retaining full control of Congress is essentially where this republic ends.
Author explains why Democrats have zero chance of winning the house until 2030.
(It's because the GOP are gerrymandering cheaters)
Author explains why Democrats have zero chance of winning the house until 2030.
(It's because the GOP are gerrymandering cheaters)
For a minute, I thought this was saying 'the presidency', and I was like, "…There... There isn't going to be a presidential election in 2030... What?"
Yeah, this is unfortunately true.
Trump wanted the International Civil Rights Center and Museum to allow him to hold a private event there (which would have shut the whole site down for five hours while he shuffled around for a photo op), they refused, and, well, you can guess the rest.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article105924857.html
Magazine "The Atlantic" is endorsing Hillary Clinton. This is only their third endorsement ever in nearly 160 years. The other two were Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson:
To take paywall issues on NY Times site into account, article is under spoiler tag.
! The Atlantic magazine has made only two presidential endorsements in its 159-year history: one for Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and one for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.
! The third comes Wednesday afternoon, when the magazine posted an editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton for president and dismissing Donald J. Trump as “the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.” For good measure, it calls him “a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing and a liar.”
! One day earlier, the Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter wrote, in his editor’s letter for the November issue, “Through word or action, Trump has promoted gun violence, bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, lying, and just about everything else that can be wrong with society.”
That came after USA Today made the first presidential endorsement in its history — or, more accurately, a “disendorsement,” as it came out against Mr. Trump (“unfit for the presidency”) but not for Hillary Clinton or some other alternative.
! This is the time in the election cycle when media columnists write about whether endorsements have much to do with the outcome. The answer is usually, if not always, “no.”
! But the question takes on another dimension this year because of the sheer weight of the endorsements against Mr. Trump. They are overwhelmingly against him, and they just keep coming, in language that is notable for its blunt condemnation of the candidate and its “save the Republic’’ tone.
! The endorsements are coming not only from the usual mainstream media suspects but also from newspapers that either never before supported a Democrat or had not in many decades — The Dallas Morning News, The Arizona Republic, The Cincinnati Enquirer — or had never endorsed any presidential candidate, like USA Today. The Wall Street Journal has not gone there, at least not yet, but a member of its conservative-leaning editorial board has: Dorothy Rabinowitz, who called Mr. Trump “unfit.”
! What’s most striking is the collective sense of alarm they convey — that Mr. Trump is a “dangerous demagogue” (USA Today) whose election would represent a “clear and present danger” (The Washington Post, The Cincinnati Enquirer), or, as The Atlantic editor Scott Stossel said in an interview Tuesday, “a potential national emergency or threat to the Republic.”
! That’s the same base line the magazine used when it decided to break its founding vow to be “the organ of no party or clique” and endorse Johnson in 1964 and, more dramatically, Lincoln in 1860.
! And yet, for all the pan-ideological dismay in America’s editorial boardrooms, a huge portion of the country just doesn’t see it the same way at all.
! National polls aren’t great for predicting the final outcome in the Electoral College. But they do capture the sense of the country. And right now The New York Times’s polling average — of various national surveys — shows that 41 percent of the country would choose Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton if the election were held now. (With 45 percent, she still holds an edge.)
! The split between editorial opinion and a significant portion of voters, especially Republican voters, has been around for decades. But this campaign takes that schism to a whole new level — not just because of the mix of publications weighing in against the Republican nominee but also because of the contrast between their apocalyptic view of a Trump presidency and his supporters’ belief that he will indeed “make America great again.”
Then again, as the language of the editorial warnings hits ever-higher decibel levels, so does the language of the attacks against the mainstream media. Mr. Trump is stoking those attacks, depicting the media as among the “special interests” that have “rigged the system against everyday Americans,” as he put it in New Hampshire last week.
! Which brings us to the question of how many minds it all changes. Die-hard Trump supporters will no doubt view the editorials as more evidence for Mr. Trump’s case that the media fix is in. Mr. Trump recently said as much when he celebrated the loss of subscriptions the more surprising Clinton endorsements have caused in some cases, saying in a Twitter post: “The people are really smart in cancelling subscriptions to the Dallas & Arizona papers & now USA Today will lose readers! The people get it!”
(The Fox Business host Charles Gasparino provided one possible motive: “A jealously rooted hate” over his wealth, “his beautiful wives” and his television success.)
A driving question is whether the factor into the mix with truly undecided voters. That is, and will remain, hard to determine. I did stumble upon some interesting data from Google, which can provide a sense of what people look for on its ubiquitous search engine.
! Searches for Mrs. Clinton spiked by nearly 50 percent in Dallas County after the Dallas Morning News recommendation in early September, though not as much as they did for the American swimmer Ryan Lochte — after his legal trouble in Brazil — or for the game between the Cowboys and the Giants. She trended in Cincinnati’s Hamilton County after The Enquirer’s endorsement, and in all of Arizona after The Republic’s endorsement, though data from Hamilton County shows she was behind subjects like “Clown Sightings” and “National Coffee Day” on the list.
! Mr. Stossel of The Atlantic said he was aware of the divide in the country. “People who support Trump have legitimate grievances and he is speaking to them in ways that clearly resonate,” he said. (The editorial, whose language was shaped by the Atlantic correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg, addresses them by saying that Mr. Trump failed to present “realistic policies to address” their “legitimate anxieties.”)
! Mr. Stossel knows that the power of endorsements can be limited. But, he said, “One hopes that our endorsement, along with many of these others, will have an amplification effect that sort of ripples out.”
! “If it affects only a few people at margins in a few key states,” he said, “that may make a difference.”
! “Given our previous endorsements, we’re two for two,” he noted. The streak will stand or fall Nov. 8.
Civil War: Fox News Edition.
Trump has been endorsed by exactly zero major newspapers. That's pretty crazy.
And Megyn Kelly remains the shining jewel of Fox News and their only hint of integrity. Wish she had someplace better to go but frankly the alternatives aren't all that much better.
@Monkey:
Its Russian supported insurgents and mercenaries.
At least some of them were Russian soldiers.
I'm not equating Pence's anti-LGBT agenda to a law which would outright force people into conversion therapy even though he's a big believer in it. I'm pointing out that Pence has an anti-LGBT agenda, period, as he so clearly demonstrated in Indiana. An anti-LGBT agenda shared by many others which has indeed gained traction for every gain made by the LGBT community. Demon Rin pointed out a helpful list of examples and links earlier on. And that agenda doesn't need to be fully accomplished for bad things to happen. All you need is some "subtle" traction for real life affect and consequences. You see, you don't need the big knockout punch to push back on human rights.
Want to stop black people from voting but you can't outright ban them from the polls anymore? Well, just make it harder for them to vote by introducing voter ID laws and charging them to get that done. That way you're not really introducing a poll tax.
Want to ban abortions but you lost RoevWade? Well, introduce unnecessarily strict and nearly impossible standards for clinics to meet so that they have to be shut down making it harder to find a place for a legal abortion.
It's not so much the crazy that-shit-is-never-going-to-pass laws that leave people up at night . It's the underhanded things to worry about. Yeah, Pence probably wouldn't pass a law forcing people to undergo conversion therapy but he sure as hell would like to make a law forcing taxpayers fund the practice.
I'm really not sure how to respond at this point. Pence and Trump are both bad, and anti-LGBT bigotry does exist… but I've kind of addressed that already. Rin made it pretty clear that the biggest relevant issue will be supreme court justice appointments.
It's bad that taxpayers should have to pay for conversion therapy, but we pay for crazy Christian crap all the time. Guantanamo Bay's still open and we're still kind of at war in the middle east, so I'm more concerned with those right now.
Trump has been endorsed by exactly zero major newspapers. That's pretty crazy.
And Megyn Kelly remains the shining jewel of Fox News and their only hint of integrity. Wish she had someplace better to go but frankly the alternatives aren't all that much better.
Shep Smith has his moments.
Have we forgotten Megyn Kelly's suck-up interview with Trump earlier this year?
I'm really not sure how to respond at this point. Rin made it pretty clear that the biggest relevant issue will be supreme court justice appointments.
No need to respond. I was just making it clear that this was inaccurate and Pence's and other's anti-LGBT agenda getting any traction is in fact not only more likely to happen (as current events demonstrate pushing against the grain of progress) but also more worrying because, besides the relentless frequency, of the effects and direct consequences it would have on millions of people for years.
Yes, Rin made it pretty clear indeed that the biggest relevant issue will be Supreme Court justices. The people that help make the law of the land. If Donald Trump and Pence get into office they'll appoint the justices that support their views/agenda.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Will independent votes make the difference in this year's presidential election? Well, maybe. Look to Maine.
Will independent votes make the difference in this year's presidential election? Well, maybe. Look to Maine.
I don't wanna especially since they got Paul LePage for Governor.
Have we forgotten Megyn Kelly's suck-up interview with Trump earlier this year?
To be fair, that was earlier this year. He was still a joke, hadn't said quite as many awful things, and wasn't looming quite as close to actually being president in a race that seems much closer than it should be.
People can change their minds and grow their opinions over time.
I disliked Hillary at the start of the year and now after doing the research and fact checking and seeing how many of the problems are just lies, I think she's actually pretty great.
I don't wanna especially since they got Paul LePage for Governor.
Yeah, but you might want to look anyway because that's what could happen except for the whole country.
No need to respond. I was just making it clear that this was inaccurate and Pence's and other's anti-LGBT agenda getting any traction is in fact not only more likely to happen (as current events demonstrate pushing against the grain of progress) but also more worrying because, besides the relentless frequency, of the effects and direct consequences it would have on millions of people for years.
Yes, Rin made it pretty clear indeed that the biggest relevant issue will be Supreme Court justices. The people that help make the law of the land. If Donald Trump and Pence get into office they'll appoint the justices that support their views/agenda.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Will independent votes make the difference in this year's presidential election? Well, maybe. Look to Maine.
I don't wanna especially since they got Paul LePage for Governor.
The end bit is especially scary. He didn't really win… an independant just stole enough votes from the other guy to get him through on a narrow margin.
I really, really hope Johnson doesn't fuck this up for everyone.
To be fair, that was earlier this year. He was still a joke, hadn't said quite as many awful things, and wasn't looming quite as close to actually being president in a race that seems much closer than it should be.
People can change their minds and grow their opinions over time.
I disliked Hillary at the start of the year and now after doing the research and fact checking and seeing how many of the problems are just lies, I think she's actually pretty great.
It was in May, when he was already the presumptive nominee. By that point he'd said more than enough awful things to disqualify him (including about Kelly).
Maybe Roger Ailes getting thrown out on his ass is making Kelly more bold.
The end bit is especially scary. He didn't really win… an independant just stole enough votes from the other guy to get him through on a narrow margin.
I really, really hope Johnson doesn't fuck this up for everyone.
I wonder if Johnson looks at those numbers and goes, 'This is good.'
Here's Trump's plan to defeat ISIS according to an Ohio mailer.
So:
Strategery!
In other Il Douche news, according to testimony seen in bankruptcy filings from the early '90s, Trump's own lawyers used to meet him in pairs because he lied so much.
Q: You had a meeting on June 16, 1990?
A: Right. Same identical entry. Right. Okay. For three quarters of an hour with Donald, right.
Q: Did Mr. Miller always do everything together with you when he was active in this case?
A: Not everything, but we—it’s always been our practice to make sure two people are present, and we don’t have a problem of people lying.
Q: You are meeting with your client?
A: That’s right. Your client. Hey, Trump is a leader in the field of expert—he’s an expert at interpreting things. Let’s put it that way.
Q: That’s interestingly put. As I recall in your letter to Mr. Descantis, which we marked yesterday, you indicated the policy of your office was to have two attorneys present for meeting with public officials?
A: Correct.
Q: Here you are meeting with your client?
A: That’s right.
Q: Was it necessary for both you and Mr. Miller to always attend the meeting —
A: We always do that.
Q: Always?
A: We tried to do it with Donald always if we could because Donald says certain things and then has a lack of memory.
No need to respond. I was just making it clear that this was inaccurate
I only brought up the Orlando shooting as an example of something extremely rare and unlikely that actually happened, as opposed to your fear of mandatory conversion therapy which thankfully has never happened and almost definitely never will. It was like me saying "you should be more afraid of meteor strikes than aliens invading."
I've already addressed that, hence the quote. You can't just say something like "what you said was inaccurate" and then try to equate unequal things without expecting me to respond. :P
The end bit is especially scary. He didn't really win… an independant just stole enough votes from the other guy to get him through on a narrow margin.
I really, really hope Johnson doesn't fuck this up for everyone.
I think you mean the Democrat stole just enough votes from the other guy to get him through. :)
Eliot Cutler (I) had 35.9% of the vote, and Libby Mitchell (D) had only 18.8%.
I've already addressed that, hence the quote. You can't just say something like "what you said was inaccurate" and then try to equate unequal things without expecting me to respond. :P
I think you mean the Democrat stole just enough votes from the other guy to get him through. :)
Eliot Cutler (I) had 35.9% of the vote, and Libby Mitchell (D) had only 18.8%.
That was in 2010. In 2014 he finished 3rd with 8,4%
That was in 2010. In 2014 he finished 3rd with 8,4%
Still, the narrative has been that the independent always steals votes from the major parties. In this election we can be fairly certain that Gary Johnson isn't going to get more votes than Hillary, but it isn't always so easy to tell who's "stealing" votes from whom.
I've already addressed that, hence the quote. You can't just say something like "what you said was inaccurate" and then try to equate unequal things without expecting me to respond. :P
Again, you missed the whole point of my previous post.
http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=43000&page=378&p=3704973&viewfull=1#post3704973
Gaining traction with a bill like that isn't akin to a meteor strike or an alien invasion. It's not as rare as a terrorist attack on the LGBT community. It's super common. In fact, it's happening right now and the consequences are real. The pushback on human rights. So, yeah, unfortunately what you said is still inaccurate.
Getting rid of the first past the post system would really help with that 2-party dominance problem you guys have but I guess that's very unlikely to happen there?
For some reason I doubt that voting reform would make third parties in this country worth investing time into.
Again, you missed the whole point of my previous post.
http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=43000&page=378&p=3704973&viewfull=1#post3704973
Gaining traction with a bill like that isn't akin to a meteor strike or an alien invasion. It's not as rare as a terrorist attack on the LGBT community. It's super common. In fact, it's happening right now and the consequences are real. The pushback on human rights. So, yeah, unfortunately what you said is still inaccurate.
Allocating federal money to bad medical treatment is not the same as literally forcing people to undergo said treatment. We are nowhere close to concentration camps for LGBT people.
Allocating federal money to bad medical treatment is not the same as literally making that treatment mandatory.
I get the feeling that your views here are colored by being from….. New York yes?
Rin is in Arizona.
Something unthinkable up here is a whole other story in a red state.
As if allocating people's tax dollars to conversion therapy isn't by itself immensely fucked up.
@Cyan:
For some reason I doubt that voting reform would make third parties in this country worth investing time into.
Well, at least it would help with the spoiler effect and there must be some worthwhile 3rd party candidates/independants.
Allocating federal money to bad medical treatment is not the same as literally forcing people to undergo said treatment. We are nowhere close to concentration camps for LGBT people.
Literally the whole point of my post was showing you that you don't need to actually achieve the worst thing imaginable for bad things to happen. Just taking steps in that direction brings forth laws and attitudes that conjure dire consequences.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Speaking of Gary Johnson, he is totally cool with siphoning votes from Hillary Clinton and letting Donald Trump win. He said it himself today.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gary-johnson-id-sleep-well-siphoning-votes-from-clinton-202657528.html
Speaking of Gary Johnson, he is totally cool with siphoning votes from Hillary Clinton and letting Donald Trump win. He said it himself today.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gary-johnson-id-sleep-well-siphoning-votes-from-clinton-202657528.html
Usually, the only party Libertarians steal votes from is the Republicans (you know, when Libs aren't running as Republicans).
But this time around, there are a disturbing amount of self-proclaimed progressives who think that legal weed is a good trade for bringing the country back to the 1920s.
@Cyan:
As if allocating people's tax dollars to conversion therapy isn't by itself immensely fucked up.
It is, but it's a realistic kind of fucked up.
@Monkey:
I get the feeling that your views here are colored by being from….. New York yes?
Rin is in Arizona.
Something unthinkable up here is a whole other story in a red state.
Rin herself admitted that her fear of mandatory conversion therapy was irrational. I could absolutely be wrong, no one's infallible. However, very few medical treatments have ever been made mandatory, and no one has presented evidence that mandatory conversion therapy was ever close to becoming law.
The imprisonment and forced treatment of allegedly suicidal patients at hospitals is a real case of mandatory medical treatment happening right now, and I wish people would discuss that more often.
Literally the whole point of my post was showing you that you don't need to actually achieve the worst thing imaginable for bad things to happen. Just taking steps in that direction brings forth laws and attitudes that conjure dire consequences.
OK, but you repeatedly said that I was wrong for saying the worst isn't going to happen.
OK, but you repeatedly said that I was wrong for saying the worst isn't going to happen.
Nope, I said you were wrong for saying the LGBT community should be more worried about Islamic terrorism than lawmakers getting any traction with a major anti-LGBT law. The worst doesn't have to happen for bad things to happen.
Nope, I said you were wrong for saying the LGBT community should be more worried about Islamic terrorism than lawmakers getting any traction with a major anti-LGBT law. The worst doesn't have to happen for bad things to happen.
That's not what I said.
I would link you to your own words but, honestly, I see no point.
Rin herself admitted that her fear of mandatory conversion therapy was irrational. I could absolutely be wrong, no one's infallible.
Her overall point was never specifically conversion therapy, the overall point was always regressive anti-trans legislation.
Y'know with all these predominantly conservatives newspapers, refusing to champion trump, I think it's likely that as many republicans switch as democrats. Its just less seen on social media for a variety of factors. I know the republicans strength is lining their people up but Trump is the most controversial nominee for the more moderate/sensible republicans
Moderate republicans will probably just not vote. Or go for Johnson since he's fiscally extremely conservative.
@Monkey:
Her overall point was never specifically conversion therapy, the overall point was always regressive anti-trans legislation.
I probably misunderstood then. Everything I said was specifically in reference to mandatory conversion therapy.
I would link you to your own words but, honestly, I see no point.
Why not?
Why not?
Because I already did and to no avail. You definitely are just misunderstanding things.
Getting rid of the first past the post system would really help with that 2-party dominance problem you guys have but I guess that's very unlikely to happen there?
The two party system works fine so long as both parties are actually willing to work in good faith or at least abide by the same rules and not just throw them out altogether whenever they get into power.
The GOP has every intention of changing the rules if Trump wins so that they can ram through a wishlist of conservative proposals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/paul-ryan-budget-congress-229216
And Trump knows this and could care less that he'd only be there for convenience sake. As long as he gets to wear the big hat and live in the White House.
As further reminder of how deep in the rabbit hole Mitch the Magic Turle and his asshole friends are, here's his response to the "let citizens sue Saudi Arabia" bill, which he voted for repeatedly:
McConnell said "I hate to blame everything on him, and I don’t" but "it would have been helpful had we had a discussion about this much earlier than last week." The White House had repeatedly sent information to the Senate about the potential negative consequences of the bill for US interests. Nevertheless, McConnell accused Obama of "dropping the ball" by merely repeatedly vetoing the bill and pleading with Congress to reconsider, which left Congress in a state where "[n]obody [in Congress] really had focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships."
"Alright, whatever the consequences of this bill that you vetoed and we pushed through, they're YOUR fault."
@Cyan:
"Alright, whatever the consequences of this bill that you vetoed and we pushed through, they're YOUR fault."
So how did this bill manage to not only get passed, but override a presidential veto without anyone thinking about the consequences of their actions?
It's almost like congress is a bunch of senile old people who get all of their news from TV.
Nobody wants to be the guy who voted against a 9/11 bill. Except Harry Reid, because he's retiring.
Nobody wants to be the guy who voted against a 9/11 bill. Except Harry Reid, because he's retiring.
Largely because, outside of The Daily Show, the media didn't bother to cover that topic at all. Plus the people who stood to benefit from each were different; the health bill was for first responders (and what had they done for the GOP lately) and was government funded healthcare while the ability (however nonsensical) to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 will definitely benefit rich people.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
One of the advisors for a Trump speech on foreign policy was a lobbyist for a Russian pipeline.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/richard-burt-trump-speech-pipeline-russia