the true believers are presumably baked into candidate here staggeringly bad favorability ratings. If other candidate here can keep Trump's support limited mostly to the true believers, then candidate here wins.
Sounds about right.
OTOH, I still think it's Clinton's to lose. Attack ads favor her unless they are really bad attack ads. They frame Us vs Them and show Them as different who need shaming. Who wants to be shamed?
Though I think that those who aren't shamed become bolder and more rebellious and quite frankly, I fear more dangerous.
Of course all Trump needs to do is show how he bought Clinton. The mantra "She's bought and paid for. I know. I used to buy her." is the only message he needs to keep pushing.
"I am honored by the confidence being placed in me by Mr. Trump and look forward to putting together a first-rate team to assemble an administration to help best serve the president-elect and the nation," Christie said in Monday's statement.
Can't unembed the video with Trump's quote to post here.
"For many, many years, when I would say these things, other white people would call me names: 'Oh, you're a hatemonger, you're a Nazi, you're like Hitler,'" he confessed. "Now they come in and say, 'Oh, you're like Donald Trump.'"
Trump's campaign is now frantically putting out that William Johnson was made a delegate as a "database error," which is bullshit. He was already known to Trump for bankrolling the explicitly white-supremacist pro-Trump robocalls (which Trump refused to denounce) blanketing several states during the primary.
"I just hope to show how I can be mainstream and have these views," Johnson tells Mother Jones. "I can be a white nationalist and be a strong supporter of Donald Trump and be a good example to everybody."
"I just hope to show how I can be mainstream and have these views," Johnson tells Mother Jones. "I can be a white nationalist and be a strong supporter of Donald Trump and be a good example to everybody."
Kinda true when you think about it. He's no different than the nutjobs on the left like Sharpton, Wright, Penn, Moore, etc. No one bats an eye when the support a moderate. It's called political participation and we should applaud it not lament it.
Like publicity there is no such thing as a bad vote.
Whenever I see the pictures from that wedding I always wonder what Bill and Hillary did to Trump to piss him off enough to run against Hillary. And not just run, but say some real Trumpy things about them.
Did Bill put the make on Trump's wife?
Did Hillary refuse him an offer she couldn't refuse?
Whenever I see the pictures from that wedding I always wonder what Bill and Hillary did to Trump to piss him off enough to run against Hillary. And not just run, but say some real Trumpy things about them.
Did Bill put the make on Trump's wife?
Did Hillary refuse him an offer she couldn't refuse?
Perhaps he got mad that Bill was hitting on all the Bride's Maids?
Whenever I see the pictures from that wedding I always wonder what Bill and Hillary did to Trump to piss him off enough to run against Hillary. And not just run, but say some real Trumpy things about them.
Did Bill put the make on Trump's wife?
Did Hillary refuse him an offer she couldn't refuse?
As a wedding present they gave him a $10 Starbucks gift card. One of tlr's friends did that and I was pretty pissed, especially when I realized she probably bought it in the lobby of the hotel on the way down.
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
YellowKing wrote:NPR released their own study today which shows Clinton with a pretty decisive victory.
We're still far too early to look at polls, but the buzz reminds me a lot of Obama/Romney. Right up until election night there were websites saying the polls were overestimating Obama's support and that Romney had a clear path to victory. I imagine you'll see the same thing this time around, right before Clinton crushes Trump by a landslide.
I'll never forget Karl Rove on Fox News during election night frantically trying to stave off defeat by crunching numbers that didn't exist.
Oh, it will inevitably be presented as a horse race. "Clinton still favored in landslide" does not draw clicks.
The Globe ran a poll of MA voters a few days ago showing Clinton up by about 15 points here (shocker!), but the interesting part to me was that only 50% of Bernie supporters say they'll vote for her. About 12% favor Trump, another 15% support an unnamed third party candidate/write-in and the rest plan to sit this one out.
[quote="Kraken"but the interesting part to me was that only 50% of Bernie supporters say they'll vote for her. About 12% favor Trump, another 15% support an unnamed third party candidate/write-in and the rest plan to sit this one out.[/quote]
This is why Trump needs the feel the Bern man for VP. Makes perfect sense, not like Bernie is young enough to run for President in eight years. Just gotta not have any wars, put the military on the border, and Trump can have left overs for the Burn man's "special" people.
Rip wrote:
Kinda true when you think about it. He's no different than the nutjobs on the left like Sharpton, Wright, Penn, Moore, etc. No one bats an eye when the support a moderate. It's called political participation and we should applaud it not lament it.
Like publicity there is no such thing as a bad vote.
Rip, the defender of the forgotten, misunderstood white nationalist racist.
"I just hope to show how I can be mainstream and have these views," Johnson tells Mother Jones. "I can be a white nationalist and be a strong supporter of Donald Trump and be a good example to everybody."
Kinda true when you think about it.
I know you've even alluded to it before, but it's no longer about making a logical point for you, is it? It's purely about pissing off other people. Preferably them damn liberals. Nothing else matters at all.
p.s. you should be celebrating Hillary Clinton, using the same logic. She has found ways to make money hand over fist. That's not something that should be lamented, but praised!
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
MapleMatch.com is the newest site to directly capitalize on this concept, promising to "make dating great again." Though the Texas-based owner of the site has promised that it is supposed to aid more in finding love than a passport, the subtext of marriage for citizenship is hard to ignore. But as an American who dated and married a Canadian, I can tell you that while you think it's a great idea now in your haze of hatred for the walking, living, breathing parody that could very well be your next dear leader, the series of life events this site could lead you to is way more complicated than you think.
My guess is that you could probably delve into Clinton's delegates and find another handful of white nationalists, nutjobs, etc. It's already been exposed that the KKK is donating to her campaign in California, but I have seen no similar outrage here.
One of her best buds of all time was KKK grand poobah Robert Byrd, but again I see no outage.
Then again, I just remembered that she's given the benefit of the doubt because she carries hot sauce in her purse and loves fried chicken. Given that information, I understand why she's not getting grief because she's clearly not racist at all.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
msduncan wrote:Then again, I just remembered that she's given the benefit of the doubt because she carries hot sauce in her purse and loves fried chicken.
To be fair, there are some other differences as well. Her campaign hasn't been built on the sort of nativism and bigotry that appeals to these racist assholes. So while we can all agree that neither candidate can control or necessarily vet the origin of every delegate / dollar associated with their camp - only one of these candidates has gone out of their way to promote the same rhetoric as many of these hate groups.
Do you see the difference? I loathe Hillary Clinton. But she's not echoing this wall-building, religion-restricting horseshit. Trump is. And that's why he gets criticized when these racist pieces of garbage come out and talk about Trump bringing legitimacy to their bullshit.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
msduncan wrote:My guess is that you could probably delve into Clinton's delegates and find another handful of white nationalists, nutjobs, etc. It's already been exposed that the KKK is donating to her campaign in California, but I have seen no similar outrage here.
There are, almost without question, some very bigoted people (of a variety of colours) that support Clinton. If you can't see the difference, then I'm not the one to educate you.
I would assume that people are already pouring through Clinton's list of delegates for any unsavory individuals (and if they aren't already, I assume people will start now that this Trump delegate is an issue). My outrage is on abatement until we see what they come up with.
Whenever I see the pictures from that wedding I always wonder what Bill and Hillary did to Trump to piss him off enough to run against Hillary. And not just run, but say some real Trumpy things about them.
Did Bill put the make on Trump's wife?
Did Hillary refuse him an offer she couldn't refuse?
Or that he's a shill and has been "in bed" with them all along? (perhaps a poor choice of words when referring to anything involving Bill Clinton)
Freyland wrote:
Or that he's a shill and has been "in bed" with them all along? (perhaps a poor choice of words when referring to anything involving Bill Clinton)
That's the GOP establishment-friendly conspiracy theory about Trump. I am hoping that at his GOP convention acceptance speech, Trump will reveal the grand charade, chastise everyone for buying into his bigoted nonsense, decline the nomination, and walk away. That would be incredible spectacle, if nothing else.
Freyland wrote:
Or that he's a shill and has been "in bed" with them all along? (perhaps a poor choice of words when referring to anything involving Bill Clinton)
That's the GOP establishment-friendly conspiracy theory about Trump. I am hoping that at his GOP convention acceptance speech, Trump will reveal the grand charade, chastise everyone for buying into his bigoted nonsense, decline the nomination, and walk away. That would be incredible spectacle, if nothing else.
Though I would be appalled at the "waste" of money spent up to that point, it sometimes takes something that extreme to get through the dense skulls of some people. I'm referring to Congenital Bigots, not Republicans, btw.
msduncan wrote:My guess is that you could probably delve into Clinton's delegates and find another handful of white nationalists, nutjobs, etc. It's already been exposed that the KKK is donating to her campaign in California, but I have seen no similar outrage here.
One of her best buds of all time was KKK grand poobah Robert Byrd, but again I see no outage.
Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK for a couple of years in the 1940s, before Hillary Clinton was even born. That's a lamentable history, but Byrd has publicly and loudly apologized and disavowed the organization a thousand times and continues to do so. Trump won't distance himself from racist organizations and racist leaders endorsing him this week.
It's pretty amazing to continually see Republicans playing the Byrd card when the modern GOP was built on direct appeals to Southerner racists.
Holman wrote:It's pretty amazing to continually see Republicans playing the Byrd card when the modern GOP was built on direct appeals to Southerner racists.
Particularly when it's played by Confederate apologists. I guess Byrd being a KKK member is unforgivable but committing treason by taking up arms against the United States is forgiven for some reason.
Holman wrote:It's pretty amazing to continually see Republicans playing the Byrd card when the modern GOP was built on direct appeals to Southerner racists.
Unless by modern you mean 1960s.
I think of the modern republican party as built on Reagan. And while it may be called the southern strategy, I don't think fair or accurate. Rural, maybe. Southern, doesn't seem to be either sufficient of necessary since the Reagan era.
Holman wrote:It's pretty amazing to continually see Republicans playing the Byrd card when the modern GOP was built on direct appeals to Southerner racists.
Unless by modern you mean 1960s.
I think of the modern republican party as built on Reagan. And while it may be called the southern strategy, I don't think fair or accurate. Rural, maybe. Southern, doesn't seem to be either sufficient of necessary since the Reagan era.
Thank you for responding to that in a much more civilized manner than I would have.
Holman wrote:It's pretty amazing to continually see Republicans playing the Byrd card when the modern GOP was built on direct appeals to Southerner racists.
Particularly when it's played by Confederate apologists. I guess Byrd being a KKK member is unforgivable but committing treason by taking up arms against the United States is forgiven for some reason.
Well, in fairness, when someone uses it against Clinton, it's not an attack in a vacuum. It's supposed to illustrate the hypocrisy of those pointing their fingers at the right while shouting racist. That it does not actually illustrate any hypocrisy of the left is beside the point.
It doesn't show hypocrisy on the right either, since their point is more "clean up your own backyard before calling us on ours" rather than "you're racist!" as a stand alone attack.
Buried at the bottom of the Associated Press's interview this week with Donald Trump is a quiet acknowledgement of something we've known for a long time: Trump has little intention of releasing his tax returns.
Trump "dismissed the idea that voters have a right to see his tax returns before going to the polls," the AP's Julie Pace and Jill Colvin write. "He's so far refused to release those documents, citing an ongoing audit. And besides, he said, 'there's nothing to learn from them.'"
A later article bumped that revelation up and added one other detail: Trump "has said he doesn't believe voters are interested."
...
This year, Trump has repeatedly insisted that because his tax filings are under audit, his lawyers are advising him not to release them to the public. We spoke with a tax attorney who agreed that it wasn't a great idea to take documents central to an investigation — which is what an audit is — and make them public.
That required taking Trump's word for the fact that the returns are under audit. So, last month, Trump released a letter indicating that returns from 2009 on are still under investigation. Investigations of returns from earlier years have been closed, but Trump's attorneys suggest that ongoing activities in documents being audited are "continuations of prior, closed examinations" in the sense that "transactions and activities" in earlier years were linked to things under audit. We asked former IRS commissioner Mark Everson to assess the claim that Trump therefore couldn't release his taxes; Everson (who at one time was a long-shot competitor to Trump in the GOP primaries) strongly disagreed.
Just gotta not have any wars, put the military on the border, and Trump can have left overs for the Burn man's "special" people. 
