The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

[Max Peck]

Business Insider

Donald Trump, who has championed anti-free-trade and hardline immigration rhetoric on the 2016 presidential campaign trail, had a starkly different tone about globalization in a 2013 op-ed published on CNN's website.

The Republican presidential nominee, writing about how Europe was a "terrific place" for investment, argued at the time that the 2008 recession had made it clear "the global economy has become truly that — global."

Trump wrote that "cultures and economics are intertwined" in today's society, and that it was necessary to "work with each other for the benefit of all."

"My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority," he wrote.

Trump continued: "In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability."

The real-estate mogul concluded his op-ed by writing that the future of the US and Europe "depends on a cohesive global economy."

"All of us must work together toward that very significant common goal," he wrote.

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Should something he wrote three years ago matter?

Do those look like words he would (or could) write? Perhaps the question should be "Should something he had ghost-written three years ago matter?"

[tgb]

Business Insider

Donald Trump, who has championed anti-free-trade and hardline immigration rhetoric on the 2016 presidential campaign trail, had a starkly different tone about globalization in a 2013 op-ed published on CNN's website.

The Republican presidential nominee, writing about how Europe was a "terrific place" for investment, argued at the time that the 2008 recession had made it clear "the global economy has become truly that — global."

Trump wrote that "cultures and economics are intertwined" in today's society, and that it was necessary to "work with each other for the benefit of all."

"My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority," he wrote.

Trump continued: "In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability."

The real-estate mogul concluded his op-ed by writing that the future of the US and Europe "depends on a cohesive global economy."

"All of us must work together toward that very significant common goal," he wrote.

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Should something he wrote three years ago matter?

Do those look like words he would (or could) write? Perhaps the question should be "Should something he had ghost-written three years ago matter?"

Great minds think alike.

Then again, he has a good brain and knows words.

[Kraken]

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before. It's not a "conspiracy" because they aren't secretly colluding. At its most nefarious, it might be a bandwagon. But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

It sort of like at the first debate when Trump accused Clinton of putting out hurtful ads against him. Most of her attack ads (that I saw at least) were just videos of Trump saying at his rallies. You can't be mad when people just report all the dumb shit you say.

[Isgrimnur]

Voter fraud

The Trump campaign pointed to a 2012 Pew Center on the States study of ways to make the election system more accurate, cost-effective and efficient. At an Oct. 17 rally, Trump cited the three main findings of the speech to back up his claim that voter fraud is common across the country:

* About 24 million (1 in every 8) voter registrations were significantly inaccurate or no longer valid because people moved, had died or were inactive voters.

* More than 1.8 million records for people who are deceased, but whose registrations were still on voter rolls.

*About 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. This could happen if voters move to a new state and register to vote without notifying their former state.

* Outdated technology, shrinking government budgets and paper-based registration systems contributed to inaccuracies and inefficiencies.

But the study does not say that these problems indicated signs of isolated or widespread voter fraud. Yet Trump used the 1.8 million figure to inaccurately claim at the rally: “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals right now are listed as voters. Oh, that’s wonderful. Well, if they’re going to vote for me, we’ll think about it, right? But I have a feeling they’re not going to vote for me. Of the 1.8 million, 1.8 million is voting for somebody else.”

The campaign pointed to three instances of voting irregularities — in Pennsylvania, Colorado and Virginia. But they were isolated instances that do not amount to widespread voter fraud — and do not show they are as common as he says they are.

Trump’s campaign then sent lists of nearly 300 instances of voting irregularities between 2004 and 2016. Some of the cases involved indictments and guilty pleas of actual voter fraud, where someone illegally mailed an early ballot or cast a ballot at a polling place to defraud the system.

But the lists also included unsupported allegations of fraud, investigations into potential fraud and reports of less nefarious activities, such as people voting incorrectly and voting machines malfunctioning.

Even if all 300 instances were confirmed cases of actual voter fraud, they would make up such a small portion of total ballots cast in that 12-year period that it would be preposterous to call voter fraud a widespread or a “big, big” problem.

[Skinypupy]

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before. It's not a "conspiracy" because they aren't secretly colluding. At its most nefarious, it might be a bandwagon. But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

Agreed. The media is covering what gets the most eyeballs and clicks. The ongoing Trump shitshow certainly qualifies, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy against him.

You'd think a guy who has been heavily involved in the media for decades would know this. Which I fully believe he does, he just knows the conspiracy angle gets his base all fired up.

[killbot737]

One time I forgot my precinct because they moved the voting locations around. The helpful people called someplace and I discovered that my dad was still a voter even though he had moved away out of state about 5 years prior. We have the same name (almost) and lived in the same city.

How would the voter office people determine who they should remove? I imagine going through the county's death certificates would make sense, and people who have updated their driver's license info, but how else can you know that someone isn't eligible to vote in a particular precinct?

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not talking about illegal voting or whatever the fuck the Trumpeters are tripping about today.

[El Guapo]

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before. It's not a "conspiracy" because they aren't secretly colluding. At its most nefarious, it might be a bandwagon. But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

Agreed. The media is covering what gets the most eyeballs and clicks. The ongoing Trump shitshow certainly qualifies, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy against him.

You'd think a guy who has been heavily involved in the media for decades would know this. Which I fully believe he does, he just knows the conspiracy angle gets his base all fired up.

Also at times Trump has greatly benefited from the media's "eyeballs and clicks" obsession. For example Trump's big September comeback (leading up to the 1st debate) was driven by idiotic semi-clickbait "cast shadows" and "raises questions" about Clinton's e-mails and the Clinton Foundation, but which were almost entirely lacking in actual substance.

Of course, then the first debate happened and everyone was like "oh right, I forgot that the other guy is completely fucking insane."

[El Guapo]

One time I forgot my precinct because they moved the voting locations around. The helpful people called someplace and I discovered that my dad was still a voter even though he had moved away out of state about 5 years prior. We have the same name (almost) and lived in the same city.

How would the voter office people determine who they should remove? I imagine going through the county's death certificates would make sense, and people who have updated their driver's license info, but how else can you know that someone isn't eligible to vote in a particular precinct?

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not talking about illegal voting or whatever the fuck the Trumpeters are tripping about today.

They might do that (although working based on death certificates could cause issues with the John Smiths of the world). I know that many (most?) states periodically purge voters who haven't voted within X years (two election cycles, or whatever other metric the state has chosen).

[GreenGoo]

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before. It's not a "conspiracy" because they aren't secretly colluding. At its most nefarious, it might be a bandwagon. But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

But...that's just reporting the truth. I get what you're saying, but the media is not "out to get him" so much as digging up all the dirt they can, as well as letting Drumpf hang himself repeatedly. They didn't create the dirt.

There are a LOT of organizations reporting on Drumpf's foibles. There are a lot less organizations reporting on Clinton rocking the house.

Drumpf's a train wreck, and train wrecks get clicks. That's not "out to get him". That's just smart business sense. The most amusing part is that Drumpf used this very aspect of the media to conquer the primary. No one could get a word in edgewise because the media followed him around like dogs hoping for a juicy bone. Now the dogs have found other, less savory bones to eat.

Sucks to be you, Drumpf. That's not unfair. That's how things work, and no one knows this better than Drumpf. Geezus, the sheer amount of talk about how media savvy Drumpf was at the beginning of his campaign was enough to make you sick. Now it's a conspiracy.

If they are "out to get him" now, does that mean they were "out to promote him" before?

Lol?

[Pyperkub]

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before. It's not a "conspiracy" because they aren't secretly colluding. At its most nefarious, it might be a bandwagon. But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

Agreed. The media is covering what gets the most eyeballs and clicks. The ongoing Trump shitshow certainly qualifies, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy against him.

You'd think a guy who has been heavily involved in the media for decades would know this. Which I fully believe he does, he just knows the conspiracy angle gets his base all fired up.

I don't buy it. He is too much of a narcissist to have that kind of self-knowledge. This article in the Ringer looks at the death-spiral:

Even those candidates who handle losing poorly often have the basic decency or self-awareness to attempt to fake it. Or at minimum, they feel a faint sense of responsibility to a democratic system that is based on a peaceful transfer of power.

None of that is in Donald Trump’s character. Trump does not place value in virtue. There will be no trying to go out with his head held high. There is only the low road. There is only an emotional toddler lashing out because he hasn’t been given what he wants.

When a man whose entire candidacy and public standing is predicated on the myth that he is a winner has to face in every single moment a reminder that he is going to face one of the biggest, most humiliating losses in presidential history on the biggest stage imaginable, you better believe he will lash out. We cannot predict exactly the manner it will play out, but we have seen the embers already and they are ugly.

IMHO the press's coverage is part dumpster-fire coverage, and part trying to do the 4th Estate job correctly and point out how bad he would be.

[Rip]

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before. It's not a "conspiracy" because they aren't secretly colluding. At its most nefarious, it might be a bandwagon. But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

So sending your articles for them to ok and tell you what to cut isn't colluding?

[Defiant]

How would the voter office people determine who they should remove? I imagine going through the county's death certificates would make sense, and people who have updated their driver's license info, but how else can you know that someone isn't eligible to vote in a particular precinct?

When you register in a new location, the new election office is supposed to notify your old election office.

When you register to vote in a new location, you’ll be asked for your previous address. Your new election office will send a cancellation form to your previous election office.

link

[El Guapo]

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before. It's not a "conspiracy" because they aren't secretly colluding. At its most nefarious, it might be a bandwagon. But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

So sending your articles for them to ok and tell you what to cut isn't colluding?

PLEASE tell me that you are referring to the "first draft" 'scandal' to hit Twitter earlier today. I don't ask for much. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.

[Zarathud]

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before.

Don't buy that bullshit. Remember Nixon?

The media had DECADES trying to take down Hillary. They gleefully covered Trump's baseless birther accusations about Obama -- for YEARS. Trump is collapsing under mere WEEKS of scrutiny. And we still don't have Trump's tax returns...

But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

It's an easy story, especially after Trump used the media attention to siphon the air out of the other Republican candidates. The media is KNOWN to cover the downfall and hubris of celebrities -- isn't that the entire premise of Celebrity Apprentice?

Trump lives by the tweet, and dies by the tweet.

Only a delusional twit would think he can get all the perks of celebrity without any of the baggage.

[Holman]

During the primary season, Clinton received more negative coverage and less positive coverage than any other candidate, Trump included.

A newly released media analysis found that the “biggest news outlets have published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — since January 2015.” The study, conducted by social media software analytics company Crimson Hexagon, also found that “the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her.”

As Media Matters has noted throughout the primary campaign, the coverage of Hillary Clinton has tended to focus on fake scandals such as her use of a private email server while her Republican counterparts have enjoyed more positive characterizations. This criticism has been backed up by a former New York Times editor who agreed that the publication has given the Clinton’s “an unfair ‘level of scrutiny.’”

Crimson Hexagon’s analysis, reported by Vox’s Jeff Stein, “shows that the media has battered Clinton more than any other candidate, perhaps because of the ongoing controversy over her emails.” Accusations of “the media being in the tank for Clinton,” Stein notes, simply “may not square with reality.” Crimson Hexagon’s analysis -- which examined reporting from The Washington Post, Politico, Fox News, the Huffington Post, and CNN -- ultimately found that more “negative stories” were published about Clinton than any other presidential candidate, and that Clinton herself received “the smallest proportion of positive stories.”

[killbot737]

How would the voter office people determine who they should remove? I imagine going through the county's death certificates would make sense, and people who have updated their driver's license info, but how else can you know that someone isn't eligible to vote in a particular precinct?

When you register in a new location, the new election office is supposed to notify your old election office.

When you register to vote in a new location, you’ll be asked for your previous address. Your new election office will send a cancellation form to your previous election office.

link

Thanks for the info. That must be a new process. I've never heard about that before. Everyplace I've ever registered when I moved has been "OK, you're registered!" No questions about previous addresses or anything like that.

[Rip]

I then had to listen to him rant about how the media was out to get Trump, and that stuff said 11 years ago shouldn't matter.

Thing is, the media are out to get Trump. We have never seen this level of advocacy before. It's not a "conspiracy" because they aren't secretly colluding. At its most nefarious, it might be a bandwagon. But I don't think you can deny that the media are overwhelmingly covering Trump as a disaster-in-progress, because that's legitimately the story.

So sending your articles for them to ok and tell you what to cut isn't colluding?

PLEASE tell me that you are referring to the "first draft" 'scandal' to hit Twitter earlier today. I don't ask for much. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.

Thrush, who was working on a story in April 2015 about "Hillary's big-money dilemma," asked Podesta if he could look over a couple of paragraphs that pertained to him.

"Because I have become a hack i will send u the whole section that pertains to u," Thrush wrote.

The Politico reporter added: "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I f----- anything up."

http://www.businessinsider.com/politico ... ta-2016-10

Most certainly a hack.

[killbot737]

Literally the second sentence after Rip's big "reveal":

Sending paragraphs from a story to ensure accuracy is not uncommon in journalism, and there is no proof that Podesta asked to have anything changed. Later in the email thread, he said "no problems here."

[Unagi]

And if the paragraphs in question were damning , why are they missing from the story?

So, I assume the paragraphs included details that he just wanted to be fact checked.

It's jovial and friendly, but doesn't sound misleading or devious (without knowing what was even shared )

[Max Peck]

[stessier]

Voter fraud

*About 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. This could happen if voters move to a new state and register to vote without notifying their former state.

Wait, you're supposed to notify the state you left? I've moved a fair amount and never done that. I wonder how many places I can vote.

[stessier]

How would the voter office people determine who they should remove? I imagine going through the county's death certificates would make sense, and people who have updated their driver's license info, but how else can you know that someone isn't eligible to vote in a particular precinct?

When you register in a new location, the new election office is supposed to notify your old election office.

When you register to vote in a new location, you’ll be asked for your previous address. Your new election office will send a cancellation form to your previous election office.

link

Well drat. It would have worked had it not been for those pesky kids!!!

[Blackhawk]

Wait, you're supposed to notify the state you left? I've moved a fair amount and never done that. I wonder how many places I can vote.

Trump will be linking to this thread on Twitter any time now.

Rigged!

[tgb]

Here in AZ if it's been more than x years since you last voted, you are dropped from the rolls and have to re-register.

[Max Peck]

Wait, you're supposed to notify the state you left? I've moved a fair amount and never done that. I wonder how many places I can vote.

Trump will be linking to this thread on Twitter any time now.

Rigged!

Unless he's going to vote for Trump, in which case it's OK.

American voter registration seems so pointlessly complicated. Here in the Canuckistan SSR, all I need to do is check off an opt-in option on my income tax return and I'm registered for any elections that happen to come up for the next year. Easy-peasy.

[ImLawBoy]

Here in AZ if it's been more than x years since you last voted, you are dropped from the rolls and have to re-register.

Why do you guys use Roman numerals?

[tgb]

Here in AZ if it's been more than x years since you last voted, you are dropped from the rolls and have to re-register.

Why do you guys use Roman numerals?

We're pretty backwards around here.

Drumpf is doubling down on not accepting the election results.

Un fucking believable

[GreenGoo]

Here in AZ if it's been more than x years since you last voted, you are dropped from the rolls and have to re-register.

Why do you guys use Roman numerals?

A little thing called class. Look it up sometime.

edit: just in case.

[Isgrimnur]

Both hands are full:

A yoga instructor and lifestyle coach came forward Thursday with claims that Donald Trump had inappropriate sexual contact with her, becoming at least the tenth woman to make such allegations against the GOP nominee.

Flanked by civil rights attorney Gloria Allred, who has represented other women with similar claims against Trump, Karena Virginia shared her story, tears streaming down her cheeks.
...
Virginia said she first encountered Donald Trump in 1998, as she was waiting for a car service to pick her up after the U.S. Open tennis tournament in Queens, New York.

"I knew who he was, but I had never met him. He was with a few other men," she said. "I was quite surprised when I overheard him talking to the other men about me. He said, 'Hey, look at this one, we haven't seen her before. Look at those legs.' As though I was an object, rather than a person."

Trump then allegedly walked up to her, grabbed her arm, and then touched the inside of her breast, Virginia said.

"I was in shock. I flinched. 'Don't you know who I am? Don't you know who I am?' That's what he said to me," she said.

[Max Peck]

Eric Trump mansplains how becoming President would be a step down for his father.

[Chaz]

Thought maybe he'd walk some of the stuff back today? Nope.

I'll totally accept the results of the election...if I win.

[Carpet_pissr]

Thought maybe he'd walk some of the stuff back today?

I, for one, did not.

[tru1cy]

Thought maybe he'd walk some of the stuff back today? Nope.

I'll totally accept the results of the election...if I win.

Of course he doubled down on it. An those core supporters ate it up. Sadly when he finally loses he'll still have a HUGE fucking microphone to spill this garbage. As horrible as Palin was she doesn't have shit on Trump.

[Carpet_pissr]

Thought maybe he'd walk some of the stuff back today? Nope.

I'll totally accept the results of the election...if I win.

Of course he doubled down on it. An those core supporters ate it up. Sadly when he finally loses he'll still have a HUGE fucking microphone to spill this garbage. As horrible as Palin was she doesn't have shit on Trump.

Yeah, I can't help but to think of her when I hear him talk. That would have been a great/horrible ticket, actually, Trump/Palin.

Would love to hear a conversation between those two talking politics. The challenge would be to identify who knows less about the topics discussed, based only on the generalities, exaggerations and speech patterns used.

[El Guapo]

This is where it matters what Trump views as his goals here. If he's truly determined to be President, he could be out there stirring shit up for months. If not, if his goal is more like Trump TV, some Trump political organization, or what have you, he might "graciously" give up on that much sooner.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo, March 18

Eloquence is a trait valued by debate team coaches but not necessarily needed for the White House. Though their supporters will always defend them, George Washington and George W. Bush are just two of many presidents considered poor public speakers — and there have been many commanders in chief in the two centuries between them who were not necessarily golden-tongued.

Now, an academic paper has put some presidents and political candidates’ language on trial. “A Readability Analysis of Campaign Speeches From the 2016 US Presidential Campaign,” released this week by Carnegie Mellon University, analyzed stump speeches to measure their “readability” — the reading level of an address, ranked from first grade to 12th grade. And, according to a summary from the university, the study found “most candidates using words and grammar typical of students in grades 6-8, though Donald Trump tends to lag behind the others.”
...
“Speeches by past presidents while on campaign and the Gettysburg Address were at least at the eighth grade level,” the paper read. “The candidates’ speeches mostly went from seventh grade level for Donald Trump to tenth grade level for Bernie Sanders.”

The researchers also tried to measure “the degree to which the candidate changes their choice of words from one speech to another.” The result appeared to confirm the perception of Hillary Clinton as a chameleon.

“[Change] could reflect an effort to take into account the different audiences or circumstances (winning or concession speech in a state, for example),” they wrote. “We can see that Hilary Clinton has the highest standard deviation and so the biggest change of choice of words from one speech to another, while Ted Cruz varies the least in his choices.”

[PLW]

George Washington

I'd say his farewell address has held up pretty well. I often return to it. This part, in particular, seems timely

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

[hepcat]

Thought maybe he'd walk some of the stuff back today? Nope.

I'll totally accept the results of the election...if I win.

Of course he doubled down on it. An those core supporters ate it up. Sadly when he finally loses he'll still have a HUGE fucking microphone to spill this garbage. As horrible as Palin was she doesn't have shit on Trump.

I honestly am beginning to think that he believes he's just being funny for his audience. He's so used to being an entertainer first, and a politician 90th that he's mixing the former into the latter and then getting confused when people take him at his word.

[Freyland]

Eric Trump mansplains how becoming President would be a step down for his father.

Okay, little irritated here. That article points out that Eric Trump "caused a furor when he compared Syrian refugees to Skittles". I just read his statement, and it seemed an extremely reasonable analogy in an otherwise sea of Trump garbage.