2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: ams288No mention of Donald's random trip to Mexico City today?
Pundits are describing it as his "Hail Maria" pass.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/mexico-trump-reactions/
Excerpt from the CNN story:
As word of Donald Trump's surprise trip south of the border spread, many Mexicans took to social media with a common refrain: "Is this a joke?"
But it wasn't long before they started coming up with jokes themselves about the controversial visit. Many also poked fun at Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, who has agreed to meet with Trump and whose popularity has been tanking.
Here are few jokes on Trump:
Trump has already been in Mexico for months -- as a piñata.
And tweets mocking Trump's Mexico visit Wednesday picked up on the trend, imagining what the presidential hopeful might say when he sees the piñatas.
Mocked tweet:
#TrumpsMexicoTripSayings The Mexican people love me so much they all honor me with paper statues.
Mexican actress Ana Brenda tweeted an idea, encouraging Peña Nieto to block Trump at the border. "You will be a national hero," she wrote.
Mexico City's Museum of Memory and Tolerance, which includes exhibits on the Holocaust and the US Civil Rights Movement, offered Trump free admission. "We invite you to visit us to remember history and not repeat it," the museum said on Twitter.
Kind of a important thing to talk about, don't ya think, when you've been traveling the country for 14 months claiming you're going to force his country to shell out billions for it....?
$25B USD was the estimate I saw. To put that in perspective, the Mexican government collects about $160B USD/year in taxes. So Trump thinks Mexico is going to spend about 16% of its revenue on a wall?Quote: ams288Coward Trump didn't even bring up the wall in his meeting with the Mexican President or who would pay for it!!
Kind of a important thing to talk about, don't ya think, when you've been traveling the country for 14 months claiming you're going to force his country to shell out billions for it....?
To put that 16% in perspective, the U.S. spends about 16% of its revenue on the military. The entire military.
In other words, Donald Trump is still bad at math.
Quote: ams288Coward Trump didn't even bring up the wall in his meeting with the Mexican President or who would pay for it!!
The meeting went well. Sure way to tell, Hillary Clinton Hits Trump for 'Dropping In' on Mexico.
Someone should tell her to be quiet while the men are talking..........
Quote: AZDuffmanSomeone should tell her to be quiet while the men are talking..........
Quote: The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy 2:12-14, New International VersionI do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Quote: MathExtremist
Well, Hillary sure has sinned, we all know that,
Quote: AZDuffmanThe meeting went well. Sure way to tell, Hillary Clinton Hits Trump for 'Dropping In' on Mexico.
Someone should tell her to be quiet while the men are talking..........
Your evidence that the meeting went well is an article that was posted before the meeting even took place???
Good luck with that one.... Wouldn't want AZ defending me in court. lol
Quote: AZDuffmanThe meeting went well. .....
Of course it did
Trump knuckled under
He's been insulting the Mexican Govt all year with the Mexico will pay for the wall chant
Of course the 1st thing Peña Nieto wants to make clear is he and Mexico will not pay for a wall
"At the start of my conversation with Donald Trump I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall, After that, the conversation moved on to other topics and unfolded in a respectful manner."
Quote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanThe meeting went well. Sure way to tell, Hillary Clinton Hits Trump for 'Dropping In' on Mexico.
Someone should tell her to be quiet while the men are talking..........
Your evidence that the meeting went well is an article that was posted before the meeting even took place???
Good luck with that one.... Wouldn't want AZ defending me in court. lol
Article does not describe the meeting, it describes Hillary's hissy-fit about Trump being the alpha-male while she looks marginalized. Look at the pics, the one posted over at DT to start. Trump looks presidential, and the public will see that,
Quote: terapinedOf course it did
Trump knuckled under
He's been insulting the Mexican Govt all year with the Mexico will pay for the wall chant
Of course the 1st thing Peña Nieto wants to make clear is he and Mexico will not pay for a wall
"At the start of my conversation with Donald Trump I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall, After that, the conversation moved on to other topics and unfolded in a respectful manner."
Yeah, I heard the start of the press questions they took after they said they weren't taking questions. Trump said no, they didn't talk about the wall, then he said they did talk about the wall, but didn't talk about how to pay for it. Then he muttered something about how we give them foreign aid, and we can take it out of that. Then he said, I don't know. Which means his only idea to pay for it is out of US taxes.
Meanwhile the Mexican President said he told Trump Mexico wouldn't be paying for it. So apparently "they" didn't talk about it, because apparently Trump wasn't listening.
The biggest joke of all is Trump acting like he has any standing in a negotiation or even a meeting like that. Offensive blowhard buffoon, claiming "the United States " this or that or anything. How dare he.
Trump- Can we at least discuss it?
Nieto- No
Trump, to reporters " We didn't discuss who will pay for it.
Quote: AZDuffman[. Trump looks presidential, and the public will see that,
LOL
This is exactly what Trump himself is thinking
That's why the hair matters so much.
The reality
Everybody listens to Trump. The hair is meaningless just as pictures are
Again, everybody listens to Trump
You never know what he is going to say.
That's why he is doing so poorly
Words matter.
Quote: ams288I feel like the Kaepernick story deserves its own thread (and I'm surprised no one has really brought it up yet here or at DT, to be honest...).
I support his stance fully as long as we white folks are allowed to not stand for the anthem because of all those black folks killing white cops.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI support his stance fully as long as we white folks are allowed to not stand for the anthem because of all those black folks killing white cops.
Every major sporting event on TV
I'm laying on the couch munching popcorn during the anthem
I doubt if I stood up once during the Olympics
Quote: beachbumbabs
The biggest joke of all is Trump acting like he has any standing in a negotiation or even a meeting like that. Offensive blowhard buffoon, claiming "the United States " this or that or anything. How dare he.
Somehow I am guessing it did not bother you so much when Obama went to Berlin in 2008 though?
The President of Mexico Is just the first in a long line of leaders who will complain about what was really said. And I'm afraid I'm going to likely believe the other person, not Trump.
Quote: AZDuffmanSomehow I am guessing it did not bother you so much when Obama went to Berlin in 2008 though?
Obama traveled to Germany as the future US president
clout baby, rock star crowds equals more clout
Trump traveled to Mexico as a future loser
Absolutely no clout.
1st thing said to Trump in the meeting is Mexico is not paying for the wall
Quote: rxwineI'm less concerned with the particulars of the Trump meeting, than the foreshadowing of hearing constant complaints of private meetings with world leaders where we have to guess what was really said when Trump was involved.
The President of Mexico Is just the first in a long line of leaders who will complain about what was really said. And I'm afraid I'm going to likely believe the other person, not Trump.
Not to worry. AZDuffman was there!!!! (psychically/spiritually, that is)
I can't escape the impression that the President invited Trump down there just so he could tell him off. Also, talking to him may have provided an insight on how authentic Trump's man-child bigot persona really is. If Trump's handlers stuffed him full of meds before the meeting, he may have made a less than horrible impression. At the subsequent news conference, Trump seemed almost rational, even subdued (triple dose of Xanax?). He even offered to eat a burrito to show his love for the Mexican people!!
I can't believe that Trump didn't seize the wide-open opportunity to "change his mind" about the stupid wall. Instead, he doubled down. That's the mark of a moron.
Quote: AZDuffmanSomehow I am guessing it did not bother you so much when Obama went to Berlin in 2008 though?
It didn't. He spoke as a private citizen. He didn't pose as an equal party to their Chancellor in a joint appearance . He didn't speak for America. Here's the full transcript of what he did say to over 200,000 people who showed up to hear it. It would be very illuminating for you if you read it, as, ironically, it's mostly about walls between nations, but of course you won't bother.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/114771
He's flipping and flopping all over the place this year.
Quote: KeyserDoes Nate Silver have a clue this year??? He's looking like a bad episode of "Crossing Over", with John Edward
He's flipping and flopping all over the place this year.
What are you talking about?
He's been pretty consistent: Hillary is in the lead.
I think it's funny how the hardcore righties hate Nate Silver. Even though he just analyzes polls. Data scares righties. Rally size is all that matters, apparently.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt didn't. He spoke as a private citizen. He didn't pose as an equal party to their Chancellor in a joint appearance . He didn't speak for America. Here's the full transcript of what he did say to over 200,000 people who showed up to hear it. It would be very illuminating for you if you read it, as, ironically, it's mostly about walls between nations, but of course you won't bother.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/114771
You are correct on the last part. Nothing Obama has to say could possible illuminate me, the guy is a bag of word-soup empty platitudes read off the teleprompter. Was then, still is I guess as I totally tuned him out about 5 years ago.
I always have nodded off when Obama talks his feel-good gobbly-gook. But thanks for the rationalization of Obama being in the right when he did it and Trump in the wrong, I would have expected nothing less!
To be more precise, data and analytical methods both scare poorly-educated voters who are bad at math and never learned to think quantitatively. Most of those voters are going for Trump, but not all innumerates are righties.Quote: ams288What are you talking about?
He's been pretty consistent: Hillary is in the lead.
I think it's funny how the hardcore righties hate Nate Silver. Even though he just analyzes polls. Data scares righties.
Actually, that'd be an interesting sociological analysis -- does numeracy correlate with political leaning? I might have to write to Nate Silver on that one...
Yet when Trump goes entirely word-soup by speaking off the cuff (as he does all the time), you and everyone else in the crowd applauds and yells "Yeah, 'Murica!"Quote: AZDuffmanYou are correct on the last part. Nothing Obama has to say could possible illuminate me, the guy is a bag of word-soup empty platitudes read off the teleprompter.
Maybe you're not looking for illumination with Trump, though. That's proper; you wouldn't find it even if you were.
Quote: MathExtremistTo be more precise, data and analytical methods both scare poorly-educated voters who are bad at math and never learned to think quantitatively. Most of those voters are going for Trump, but not all innumerates are righties.
If Hillary wins, most of those you classify above will not be voting for Trump.
Obama won the 2012 election 52% to 48%. He won the group named by the Democrats as the "poorly educated" 53%-47%. Now, I do disagree with that broad categorization because there are plenty of non-college grads who are smarter and have more common sense than a whole lot college grads, but that is how Democrats have classified them (and then called Trump out for "loving" them...Dem-o-dummies really can't decide on anything; which is what they often accuse Trump--often rightfully--of). Most of the "innumerates" are then, well, voting Democrat.
I think we did talk about this before, back when we could have a reasonable conversation without being called names and lumped in groups by some newcomer who is obviously smarter than everyone here about everything.
I hope I'm not guilty of such lumping and name calling, but I also perceive a pretty big distinction between generally being educated and specifically being numerate. It is quite common for someone to have practical intelligence that applies well in the real (non-academic) world in subjects related to humanities. It is far rarer for someone to independently develop numerical intuition without formal education, and the rare folks who do are often geniuses like Ramanujan. There's a reason for that. Much of the education that enables you to function in the real world is based in common sense and merely refined during schooling. But mathematics -- especially quantitative reasoning -- is different. Many people are simply unable to intuit probability theory or statistics, and that explains why so, so many people routinely fall for the Gambler's Fallacy or make wagers that are obviously sucker bets. Only proper education can overcome those false intuitions. So yes, I agree -- there are a lot of non-college-grads that are smarter (by several measures) than college grads, but there are also many people, college or no, who still can't reason quantitatively. You see that here on this forum every time someone says "I have a new gambling system, you just need to keep betting forever" or some such nonsense.Quote: RonCIf Hillary wins, most of those you classify above will not be voting for Trump.
Obama won the 2012 election 52% to 48%. He won the group named by the Democrats as the "poorly educated" 53%-47%. Now, I do disagree with that broad categorization because there are plenty of non-college grads who are smarter and have more common sense than a whole lot college grads, but that is how Democrats have classified them (and then called Trump out for "loving" them...Dem-o-dummies really can't decide on anything; which is what they often accuse Trump--often rightfully--of). Most of the "innumerates" are then, well, voting Democrat.
I think we did talk about this before, back when we could have a reasonable conversation without being called names and lumped in groups by some newcomer who is obviously smarter than everyone here about everything.
Pop quiz: what's 17 x 6?
Be honest, how long did it take you to answer that question?
Quote: MathExtremistPop quiz: what's 17 x 6?
Be honest, how long did it take you to answer that question?Assuming you don't have that product memorized, which you normally wouldn't, 17 x 6 = 7 x 6 + 10 x 6 = 42 + 60 = 102. Every adult should be able to do that in their heads within 15 seconds.
Would doing so mean I would be considered numerate?
Quote: MathExtremistI hope I'm not guilty of such lumping and name calling, but I also perceive a pretty big distinction between generally being educated and specifically being numerate. It is quite common for someone to have practical intelligence that applies well in the real (non-academic) world in subjects related to humanities. It is far rarer for someone to independently develop numerical intuition without formal education, and the rare folks who do are often geniuses like Ramanujan. There's a reason for that. Much of the education that enables you to function in the real world is based in common sense and merely refined during schooling. But mathematics -- especially quantitative reasoning -- is different. Many people are simply unable to intuit probability theory or statistics, and that explains why so, so many people routinely fall for the Gambler's Fallacy or make wagers that are obviously sucker bets. Only proper education can overcome those false intuitions. So yes, I agree -- there are a lot of non-college-grads that are smarter (by several measures) than college grads, but there are also many people, college or no, who still can't reason quantitatively. You see that here on this forum every time someone says "I have a new gambling system, you just need to keep betting forever" or some such nonsense.
Pop quiz: what's 17 x 6?
Be honest, how long did it take you to answer that question?Assuming you don't have that product memorized, which you normally wouldn't, 17 x 6 = 7 x 6 + 10 x 6 = 42 + 60 = 102. Every adult should be able to do that in their heads within 15 seconds.
About three seconds. 10X 6 plus 7x6.
Quote: billryanQuote: MathExtremistI hope I'm not guilty of such lumping and name calling, but I also perceive a pretty big distinction between generally being educated and specifically being numerate. It is quite common for someone to have practical intelligence that applies well in the real (non-academic) world in subjects related to humanities. It is far rarer for someone to independently develop numerical intuition without formal education, and the rare folks who do are often geniuses like Ramanujan. There's a reason for that. Much of the education that enables you to function in the real world is based in common sense and merely refined during schooling. But mathematics -- especially quantitative reasoning -- is different. Many people are simply unable to intuit probability theory or statistics, and that explains why so, so many people routinely fall for the Gambler's Fallacy or make wagers that are obviously sucker bets. Only proper education can overcome those false intuitions. So yes, I agree -- there are a lot of non-college-grads that are smarter (by several measures) than college grads, but there are also many people, college or no, who still can't reason quantitatively. You see that here on this forum every time someone says "I have a new gambling system, you just need to keep betting forever" or some such nonsense.
Pop quiz: what's 17 x 6?
Be honest, how long did it take you to answer that question?Assuming you don't have that product memorized, which you normally wouldn't, 17 x 6 = 7 x 6 + 10 x 6 = 42 + 60 = 102. Every adult should be able to do that in their heads within 15 seconds.
About three seconds. 10X 6 plus 7x6.
My first instinct is 15X6 + 2X6.
Would I fail common core math?
How long as the question been up now? Hell, I still haven't figured out the answer...
No, ME, I don't consider you one of those at all. You haven't mentioned Baffin Island or anything like that. Imagine that, though, that other Democrats/Liberals here have called Trump "Hitler-like" while one of them wishes to eliminate Republicans.
Quote: ams288Quote: billryanQuote: MathExtremistI hope I'm not guilty of such lumping and name calling, but I also perceive a pretty big distinction between generally being educated and specifically being numerate. It is quite common for someone to have practical intelligence that applies well in the real (non-academic) world in subjects related to humanities. It is far rarer for someone to independently develop numerical intuition without formal education, and the rare folks who do are often geniuses like Ramanujan. There's a reason for that. Much of the education that enables you to function in the real world is based in common sense and merely refined during schooling. But mathematics -- especially quantitative reasoning -- is different. Many people are simply unable to intuit probability theory or statistics, and that explains why so, so many people routinely fall for the Gambler's Fallacy or make wagers that are obviously sucker bets. Only proper education can overcome those false intuitions. So yes, I agree -- there are a lot of non-college-grads that are smarter (by several measures) than college grads, but there are also many people, college or no, who still can't reason quantitatively. You see that here on this forum every time someone says "I have a new gambling system, you just need to keep betting forever" or some such nonsense.
Pop quiz: what's 17 x 6?
Be honest, how long did it take you to answer that question?Assuming you don't have that product memorized, which you normally wouldn't, 17 x 6 = 7 x 6 + 10 x 6 = 42 + 60 = 102. Every adult should be able to do that in their heads within 15 seconds.
About three seconds. 10X 6 plus 7x6.
My first instinct is 15X6 + 2X6.
Would I fail common core math?
I've no idea. Most people know up to 12x12, which is what I learned in first grade. That was well over fifty years ago.
Quote: billryanPoorly educated is defined as not having finished HIGH SCHOOL, not College.
Actually, being poorly educated is defined as having received a poor education. This could easily be true of someone who never finished grade school, finished high school, or graduated from college.
What we have to do here is sum up the RonC School of Thinkin' re higher education:
1. Ah knows plenty of folks who is lots smarter than them snooty college edumacated folk, and them people is stupid cuz they votes Democrat anyways.
2. You doesn't need to goes to college to unnerstand stuff. I never went, and I knows everything durn near perfect, exceptin' maybe that unimportant book stuff.
3. Hyuk! Hyuk!
What comes after 3? Ah fergits.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikActually, being poorly educated is defined as having received a poor education. This could easily be true of someone who never finished grade school, finished high school, or graduated from college.
What we have to do here is sum up the RonC School of Thinkin' re higher education:
1. Ah knows plenty of folks who is lots smarter than them snooty college edumacated folk, and them people is stupid cuz they votes Democrat anyways.
2. You doesn't need to goes to college to unnerstand stuff. I never went, and I knows everything durn near perfect, exceptin' maybe that unimportant book stuff.
3. Hyuk! Hyuk!
What comes after 3? Ah fergits.
Joe.
This is a troll of RonC. Take it down a notch. Warning.
Quote: MathExtremistTo be more precise, data and analytical methods both scare poorly-educated voters who are bad at math and never learned to think quantitatively. Most of those voters are going for Trump, but not all innumerates are righties.
Actually, that'd be an interesting sociological analysis -- does numeracy correlate with political leaning? I might have to write to Nate Silver on that one...
Actually, I think that the concepts necessary to understand the 2016 election are more qualitative than quantitative. For example, "bloviating, lying buffoon" is a qualitative concept, while "trailing 51% to 41%" is a quantitative concept. The former is more helpful in understanding Trump.
I would expect numeracy to be roughly correlated with political liberalism, for the same reason that intelligence and education have the same correlation. The correlation would be rough because number sense--the numeric equivalent of literacy--varies from person to person as a somewhat inherent quality. Numbers generally are counterintuitive concepts, as are calculations. So I would expect the person who puts forth the effort to learn to analyze and calculate numeric quantities, as well as the person who is inherently analytical, to be capable of more advanced thought than most persons. I would therefore expect such persons to be political liberals, because liberalism is complex and nuanced, whereas conservatism is crude and simplistic.
I think you should amend "never learned to think quantitatively" to "never learned to think." After all, you don't need quantitative analysis to realize that building a wall, mass deportations, the sale of Trump wigs, etc. are asinine ideas. The fact that so many Trumpers believe in those ideas nonetheless shows that they are incapable, on the most fundamental level, of reasoned thought.
Quote: beachbumbabsJoe.
This is a troll of RonC. Take it down a notch. Warning.
Sorry. I just couldn't resist when I saw the old saw, "Lots of folks without college educations are smart." It's like saying "Lots of basketball players are short, so it doesn't matter if you're tall or not." But I'll leave poor ol' RonC alone. We need folks like him in the world, and while I've blocked him due to my susceptibility to acid reflux, he has the right to post anything he wants, within forum rules, of course. My apologies.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikSorry. I just couldn't resist when I saw the old saw, "Lots of folks without college educations are smart." It's like saying "Lots of basketball players are short, so it doesn't matter if you're tall or not." But I'll leave poor ol' RonC alone. We need folks like him in the world, and while I've blocked him due to my susceptibility to acid reflux, he has the right to post anything he wants, within forum rules, of course. My apologies.
Thanks.
Quote: Garrison KeillorWe made our mistakes back in the 20th century, Lord knows, but we never nominated a man for president who brags about not reading. Calvin Coolidge had his limits. Warren G. Harding spent more time on his hair than strictly necessary. Lyndon Baines Johnson was a piece of work. But all of them read books. When I envision a Trump Presidential Library, I see enormous chandeliers and gold carpet and a thousand slot machines. God help us. I mean it. We’re in trouble down here.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikSorry. I just couldn't resist when I saw the old saw, "Lots of folks without college educations are smart." It's like saying "Lots of basketball players are short, so it doesn't matter if you're tall or not." But I'll leave poor ol' RonC alone. We need folks like him in the world, and while I've blocked him due to my susceptibility to acid reflux, he has the right to post anything he wants, within forum rules, of course. My apologies.
Blocking an obvious troll like this is worthless because someone else will quote him on something and you'll end up seeing what he writes anyway. When you write a factual statement about a past election and the likely result in the current election and he writes some crap that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject--which was the amount of poorly educated people and who they would vote for in November--just to troll someone on the board. Instead of an intelligent discussion of the group being defined as the "poorly educated" and how they will vote, he sinks to making fun of anyone who might have a different point of view and degrades the discussion to name-calling and other childish activity.
He can't even respond to a moderator with a proper "I'm sorry"--he trolled again in his "apology". Then he gets "thanked" for his non-apology?
There are a lot of people here I disagree with politically. This boards leans left at least among the members willing to make political comments. I get that. I expect to take a lot of stuff from people who don't agree with my point of view. However, I don't expect to be trolled and to have the conversation narrow to the mention of the extermination of Republicans and things of that sort. I don't want Liberals and/or Democrats "exiled" or "eliminated"...I just don't always agree with them. Folks like this poster make it less likely anyone with an opposing point of view will bother posting in this thread, so the conversation basically ends up being one side cheering for itself. I've stayed away from this thread for a bit, and I'll do so again.
It is likely I will get little support from members here from my position on this, and I could even end up suspended for a "personal insult"--that is fine. I have insulted him. I am not sorry nor would I consider apologizing. I am not even asking that anything happen to the poster; this is actually more a comment on how people who act like that not only don't change anyone's opinion (which doesn't happen a lot anyway); they also drive away the opportunity for decent conversation.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/how-fox-news-women-took-down-roger-ailes.html
Some good bits (I've bolded my favorite parts):
Quote:Murdoch was not a fan of Trump’s and especially did not like his stance on immigration. (The antipathy was mutual: “Murdoch’s been very bad to me,” Trump told me in March.) A few days before the first GOP debate on Fox in August 2015, Murdoch called Ailes at home. “This has gone on long enough,” Murdoch said, according to a person briefed on the conversation. Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox’s debate moderators — Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace — to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes, understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely thought it was a bad idea. “Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee,” Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn’t fight Murdoch on the debate directive.
On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions. But it was Kelly’s question regarding Trump’s history of crude comments about women that created a media sensation. He seemed personally wounded by her suggestion that this spoke to a temperament that might not be suited for the presidency. “I’ve been very nice to you, though I could probably maybe not be based on the way you have treated me,” he said pointedly.
After the debate, Trump called Ailes and screamed about Kelly. “How could you do this?” he said, according to a person briefed on the call. Ailes was caught between his friend Trump, his boss Murdoch, and his star Kelly. “Roger lost control of Megyn and Trump,” a Fox anchor said.
Quote:Kelly received death threats from viewers, according to a person close to her. Kelly had even begun to speculate, according to one Fox source, that Trump might have been responsible for her getting violently ill before the debate last summer. Could he have paid someone to slip something into her coffee that morning in Cleveland? she wondered to colleagues.
Quote:Many people I spoke with believe that the current management arrangement is just a stopgap until the election. “As of November 9, there will be a bloodbath at Fox,” predicts one host. “After the election, the prime-time lineup could be eviscerated. O’Reilly’s been talking about retirement. Megyn could go to another network. And Hannity will go to Trump TV.”
Sept. 26 - Lester Holt
Oct. 9 - Anderson Cooper & Martha Raddatz (town hall format)
Oct. 19 - Chris Wallace
VP Debate Oct. 4 - Elaine Quijano
G2E Debate Viewing Party! There's normally a cocktail hour on the Monday night before the G2E show floor opens but I can't imagine that would be as much fun as watching Clinton/Trump on the giant screens in a sportsbook. I wonder if the Venetian will use it's tech to do in-running bets or prop bets somehow. Like "which candidate gets the next boos" or "which candidate says "Mexico" first."Quote: ams288Debate moderators have been announced (assuming Trump doesn't chicken out):
Sept. 26 - Lester Holt
Quote: MathExtremistG2E Debate Viewing Party! There's normally a cocktail hour on the Monday night before the G2E show floor opens but I can't imagine that would be as much fun as watching Clinton/Trump on the giant screens in a sportsbook. I wonder if the Venetian will use it's tech to do in-running bets or prop bets somehow. Like "which candidate gets the next boos" or "which candidate says "Mexico" first."
Well, if we do that, we need some prop bets of our own.
Trump doesn't show up at all +350
Winner of debate Trump +1100 Clinton -900
Trump insult of previously unattacked racial/ethnic/cultural/religious group +300
Repetition of Trump insult of previously attacked racial/ethnic/cultural/religious group -700
At least one question about Clinton's emails - 14,000
At least one question about Trump's fantasy wall -11,000
Grammar errors by Trump: OVER 9 -110
Worst stylistic feature: Trump's hair -170; Hillary's pantsuit +150
Debate degenerates into fistfight +800 including the moderators +1500
All very smart and insightful except the term limits idea. The billionaires would have an even bigger advantage being able to just buy another round and reload. They're mostly cloned as it is already. Citizens united is what needs undone, and freeing the media from being propaganda arms.Quote: beachbumbabsI think it's time to separate the Trump voters from the core Trump voters. If that's possible.
There is a real unanswered, legitimate anger and frustration in this country about our political process the last 30 years or longer. Those people are turning to Trump not because he's a good candidate, or even a mediocre one. They're turning to him because the politicians they have are failing to do their jobs.
If the Republicans had an Elizabeth Warren, for example, that person would have won the primary and be leading the general. Look how close Bernie, as an iconoclast outsider, came to winning. Look how the Republicans doing business as usual fell to nonsense without substance. Trump's biggest failure is or will be that he doesn't know how to solve any of the problems he's screaming about. He only knows how to throw blame and belittle other people. But even the thought that their dissatisfaction is being expressed is enough to line up a lot of unhappy people behind him.
Yeah, round up the idiots and the supremacists and send them to Baffin. But millions of others could be part of the solution if we were to work together on our problems.
And yet idiot John Mica got elected again tonight. Idiot Bill Posey is unopposed. (These are people I've lobbied and been their constituent, so i feel safe in applying labels in this instance). So at least 2 do-nothing block - everything Florida clowns are returning to the House.
We never learn. And we eat our young, too. What upstanding person is willing, any more, to be a public servant and go through the personal and professional mine field that is national politics these days? You almost have to be a jerk to start with, because it's not about service, it's about power and money all the time now.
Sigh. I don't know what more can be done. Term limits, I guess. The ballot box isn't cleaning house like it should.
I remembered a story of the occupied French putting on plays criticizing the Nazis right under their noses, and that reminds me of things like the daily show because only there are they allowed to report the truth.
I would not underestimate him. He will find that thing nobody else would dare say and dig and dig at it.Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, if we do that, we need some prop bets of our own.
Trump doesn't show up at all +350
Winner of debate Trump +1100 Clinton -900
Trump insult of previously unattacked racial/ethnic/cultural/religious group +300 lo
Repetition of Trump insult of previously attacked racial/ethnic/cultural/religious group -700
At least one question about Clinton's emails - 14,000
At least one question about Trump's fantasy wall -11,000
Grammar errors by Trump: OVER 9 -110
Worst stylistic feature: Trump's hair -170; Hillary's pantsuit +150
Debate degenerates into fistfight +800 including the moderators +1500
I think he'll say something like she wouldn't be there if not for the DNC. If she claims innocence, I don't think she'll be believed. He'll find something.
Quote: onenickelmiracleI would not underestimate him. He will find that thing nobody else would dare say and dig and dig at it.
I think he'll say something like she wouldn't be there if not for the DNC. If she claims innocence, I don't think she'll be believed. He'll find something.
Well, that would be stupid even for Trump, ignoring the fact that she won the primaries by a margin of three million votes. Of course, one COULD float the conspiracy theory angle and say that the primaries were "rigged," but that's a little far out, even for Trump. And what exactly should Clinton claim "innocence" of? Winning the primaries?????????
I think that Trump's performance will be one of the worst in modern times, especially since unlike the Republican debates, this will not be The Trump Show and he won't be able to control the outcome.
That blowhard jerk got a free pass from the media during the primary debates because he was faintly amusing, but now, the press will be all over everything he says, including (gasp!!) fact checking his pronouncements.
Quote: Trump's campaign NDADuring the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company ... and to prevent your employees from doing so.
...
[Y]ou promise and agree not to assist or counsel, directly or indirectly, for compensation or as a volunteer, any person that is a candidate or exploring candidacy for President of the United States other than Mr. Trump and to prevent your employees from doing so.
https://talk.donaldjtrump.com/User/NonDisclosureAgreement
It is obviously illegal, not to mention despicable, to require a volunteer to either (a) squelch the free speech of any employees under their control or (b) prohibit any such employees who have different political views from expressing them through volunteering for another candidate. It is noteworthy that most of the employer Trump volunteers who have "agreed" to this document are likely in breach of that agreement already, if any of their employees have either disparaged Trump or volunteered for another candidate, and are therefore liable for the damages set forth in the contract. Those include indemnity and legal costs:
Quote:You hereby agree to indemnify, defend (with counsel acceptable to the Trump Person you are defending) and hold harmless each Trump Person from and against any claim, demand, suit, proceeding, damages, cost, loss or expense of any kind or nature, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements, incurred by any Trump Person as a consequence of your breach of any of your promises or agreements in this agreement.
Based on Trump's well-documented litigation history, it wouldn't surprise me at all if, as part of his impending flame-out, he filed suit against several lucrative targets under this agreement. He'll probably claim that the reason he lost the election was due to that breach and therefore he's owed at least $2M for lost wages.
Of course, buried within this legalese is a clue to what many people have been saying all along:
Yes, I know it's a conditional clause, but why bother putting it there in the first place? The backstop is "the date the current U.S. presidential election cycle is over" and that's only a matter of months in any event. It seems too prescient to be merely a coincidence. We'll see.Quote:"Non-Compete Cut Off Date" means the date the current U.S presidential election cycle is over or, if earlier, the date Mr. Trump announces that he will not run or will no longer run for the Presidency of the United States of America in the current U.S. presidential election cycle.
I'm hearing that the NDA is not only unconstitutional via First Amendment protections, it's unenforceable. And more than ironic, given Trump's stance on being able to say whatever nasty thing pops into his head, without apology or factual basis. Transparency, he claims. What a laugh. More third world dictator policies, more like.
