Octopus Overlords

Sshhh! I don't want any negativity that might hinder the release of The Day the Clown Cried!

Is it because he's laughing in that photo? Or do you just want people to understand that's what you think all Asian folks look like?

Just arguing that he is not an old white guy. He is obviously asian......

If that doesn't work I am going with this....

Holy shit! Jerry Lewis is turning into my mother. Of course she's 90, in a nursing home, and suffering from senile dementia, but the views and mannerisms are identical.

Not really O.T. since apparently we've moved on from Trump and are now discussing Jerry Lewis, but someone on Gilbert Gottfried's podcast pointed out that if you close your eyes and listen to Jerry Lewis being interviewed and listen to Lou Reed being interviewed, you can't tell the difference.

Jerry Lewis
Which is which?

I was just listening to that Penn interview.

Jerry Lewis supporting Trump shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone since he is a well known bigot against anyone who isn't a straight white male. The fact that he has raised millions for Muscular Dystrophy is the only surprising thing about him.

I'm holding out for Buddy Hackett's endorsement.

This thread wins solely based on the mention of Buddy Hackett on OO.

Trump's first TV ad is out. Its theme is fear of foreigners.

Donald Trump made his fortune building commercial real estate, but as a candidate he’s selling a gated community. The Republican front-runner released his first ad Monday, and its message is that he will keep them out. By them, he means Mexicans and Muslims. The ad is not subtle. It includes images of ISIS fighters, the San Bernardino shooters, and dark figures crossing the border in hoards like an army storming the keep. (For those of you who thought the cinematic quality of the invading army seemed almost too menacing to be true, it turns out you were right. According to Politifact, it wasn’t people crossing the Mexican border. The footage in the Trump ad is of people crossing the Moroccan border, who pose no immediate threat to the United States, an ocean away.)

Two or three years ago that ad would be a straight up parody ad...this is completely embarassing.

How about those crowds that materialize in the deep south for Trump:



Or not. That was the crowd that showed up in Lowell, MA the other day. Let me emphasize this: Massachusetts (!).

When you have that kind of energy surrounding a campaign it's going to be formidable no matter how silly you think it might be. I was expecting him to begin to fade around Thanksgiving like some of the other candidates have the past several election cycles, but he's showing no signs of it.

I will say, though, that if the deep south wants Lowell, they are welcome to it.

El Guapo wrote:I will say, though, that if the deep south wants Lowell, they are welcome to it.

Only if you keep the weather.

Further reading says the crowd estimates were 8k-10k

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I will say, though, that if the deep south wants Lowell, they are welcome to it.

Only if you keep the weather.

Further reading says the crowd estimates were 8k-10k

Done. I mean, we're stuck with the weather regardless, so we might as well get rid of Lowell.

That aside, I take crowd sizes as a measure of sorts of a candidate's ability to energize the base (and perhaps get the base to the polls on election day), but not *really* as much of a measure of regional support. Sanders has drawn huge crowds in the deep south, but obviously there's no way that he would actually win Alabama, Mississippi, et al on election day (if he's the nominee).

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I will say, though, that if the deep south wants Lowell, they are welcome to it.

Only if you keep the weather.

Further reading says the crowd estimates were 8k-10k

Done. I mean, we're stuck with the weather regardless, so we might as well get rid of Lowell.

That aside, I take crowd sizes as a measure of sorts of a candidate's ability to energize the base (and perhaps get the base to the polls on election day), but not *really* as much of a measure of regional support. Sanders has drawn huge crowds in the deep south, but obviously there's no way that he would actually win Alabama, Mississippi, et al on election day (if he's the nominee).

Definitely and I agree with you. It's going to be an interesting election. Sanders is bringing in energized democratic voters whereas Hillary is not. Hillary is struggling to get good sized crowds in comparison. On the Republican side Trump is bringing big crowds whereas the others aren't. So does that translate into a very energized Republican base vs a 'going through the motions' Hillary base in November? I don't know. There is time for her to get people energized, but it hasn't happened yet. Also unknown is whether it would affect the actual outcome on election day.

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I will say, though, that if the deep south wants Lowell, they are welcome to it.

Only if you keep the weather.

Further reading says the crowd estimates were 8k-10k

Done. I mean, we're stuck with the weather regardless, so we might as well get rid of Lowell.

That aside, I take crowd sizes as a measure of sorts of a candidate's ability to energize the base (and perhaps get the base to the polls on election day), but not *really* as much of a measure of regional support. Sanders has drawn huge crowds in the deep south, but obviously there's no way that he would actually win Alabama, Mississippi, et al on election day (if he's the nominee).

Definitely and I agree with you. It's going to be an interesting election. Sanders is bringing in energized democratic voters whereas Hillary is not. Hillary is struggling to get good sized crowds in comparison. On the Republican side Trump is bringing big crowds whereas the others aren't. So does that translate into a very energized Republican base vs a 'going through the motions' Hillary base in November? I don't know. There is time for her to get people energized, but it hasn't happened yet. Also unknown is whether it would affect the actual outcome on election day.

I will say that it's hard to think of anything that would get the democratic base more excited about Hillary than the Republicans nominating Trump. What would terrify me if I were the GOP leadership is that Trump might well run up the score in places like Alabama and South Carolina (going from like 60% - 70% of the vote to 90%), but cause places like Arlington to break overwhelmingly for Hillary, which could well lead to an electoral wipeout not seen in a long time.

Which also leads me to think that Trump's candidacy is such a huge godsend for Cruz. He can sell himself to the conservative base as a true conservative, and simultaneously sell himself to the Republican establishment as the only thing between the party and a Trump wipeout in the general election.

The Republican base that's shown itself the last few months seems energized, but it's an overwhelmingly negative energy so far. It operates almost solely on fear and distrust. I really hope they are the minority though when the campaign energy really revs itself up. Otherwise we're looking at a GOP that will back the loudest voice and not the best one.

Also: My time tested political barometer, Alabama football, is being put to the test Monday. If they win it will be a strong year for the Democrats and the potential for a Hillary presidency. If they lose big it could mean that the Republicans will have a strong November.

If you will recall, I've said before that the fortunes of Alabama football have seemingly been tied to Democratic fortunes. Early 60s was the rise of Bryant's age of football and you had Kennedy in the White House. By the late 60s under Nixon Bryant had begun to fall into a funk. In the early 1970s Alabama installed the Wishbone which ushered in the success of the latter half of the 1970s (Carter admin). The 1980s were good for Republicans and bleak for Alabama. When Clinton was elected in 1992 Alabama won the national title and had several seasons following that were 10 win seasons. They faded somewhat with the Republican takeover of Congress, but were still strong through the remaining Clinton years (winning the SEC in 1999). Bush Jr. ushered in the dark ages of Alabama football until Nick Saban took over in 2007 and won the first of 3 national titles for Bama during Obama's first years as President. That domination has continued through his presidency and Bama is playing for another title on Monday.

So if Alabama loses Monday and Saban retires -- there should be mass panic among Democrats. If Alabama dominates and wins and Saban goes right back to recruiting and getting ready for another season, then look forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016.

There. I've made my forecast.

I think Trump is the Grateful Dead of politics. More people came for the scene than the music. You will get a crowd just as large and just as energized at a roller derby match or a monster truck show.

msduncan wrote:Also: My time tested political barometer, Alabama football, is being put to the test Monday. If they win it will be a strong year for the Democrats and the potential for a Hillary presidency. If they lose big it could mean that the Republicans will have a strong November.

If you will recall, I've said before that the fortunes of Alabama football have seemingly been tied to Democratic fortunes. Early 60s was the rise of Bryant's age of football and you had Kennedy in the White House. By the late 60s under Nixon Bryant had begun to fall into a funk. In the early 1970s Alabama installed the Wishbone which ushered in the success of the latter half of the 1970s (Carter admin). The 1980s were good for Republicans and bleak for Alabama. When Clinton was elected in 1992 Alabama won the national title and had several seasons following that were 10 win seasons. They faded somewhat with the Republican takeover of Congress, but were still strong through the remaining Clinton years (winning the SEC in 1999). Bush Jr. ushered in the dark ages of Alabama football until Nick Saban took over in 2007 and won the first of 3 national titles for Bama during Obama's first years as President. That domination has continued through his presidency and Bama is playing for another title on Monday.

So if Alabama loses Monday and Saban retires -- there should be mass panic among Democrats. If Alabama dominates and wins and Saban goes right back to recruiting and getting ready for another season, then look forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016.

There. I've made my forecast.

Here's where the rubber meets the road for you, though - if you could talk to Saban and convince him to take a dive on Monday on behalf of the country / party, would you do it?

Or, is it possibly the case that if Alabama *could/should* dominate but intentionally loses, might the democrats still win? That is, is the electoral result caused by Alabama actually winning, or by Alabama merely being good enough that they should win?

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:Also: My time tested political barometer, Alabama football, is being put to the test Monday. If they win it will be a strong year for the Democrats and the potential for a Hillary presidency. If they lose big it could mean that the Republicans will have a strong November.

If you will recall, I've said before that the fortunes of Alabama football have seemingly been tied to Democratic fortunes. Early 60s was the rise of Bryant's age of football and you had Kennedy in the White House. By the late 60s under Nixon Bryant had begun to fall into a funk. In the early 1970s Alabama installed the Wishbone which ushered in the success of the latter half of the 1970s (Carter admin). The 1980s were good for Republicans and bleak for Alabama. When Clinton was elected in 1992 Alabama won the national title and had several seasons following that were 10 win seasons. They faded somewhat with the Republican takeover of Congress, but were still strong through the remaining Clinton years (winning the SEC in 1999). Bush Jr. ushered in the dark ages of Alabama football until Nick Saban took over in 2007 and won the first of 3 national titles for Bama during Obama's first years as President. That domination has continued through his presidency and Bama is playing for another title on Monday.

So if Alabama loses Monday and Saban retires -- there should be mass panic among Democrats. If Alabama dominates and wins and Saban goes right back to recruiting and getting ready for another season, then look forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016.

There. I've made my forecast.

Here's where the rubber meets the road for you, though - if you could talk to Saban and convince him to take a dive on Monday on behalf of the country / party, would you do it?

Or, is it possibly the case that if Alabama *could/should* dominate but intentionally loses, might the democrats still win? That is, is the electoral result caused by Alabama actually winning, or by Alabama merely being good enough that they should win?

Nope. Roll Tide!

1. Religion (Alabama football)
2. Family
3. Country

In that order.

I'm unsure about the implications of an intentional dive. Maybe that would result in a 3rd party win? lol

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:Also: My time tested political barometer, Alabama football, is being put to the test Monday. If they win it will be a strong year for the Democrats and the potential for a Hillary presidency. If they lose big it could mean that the Republicans will have a strong November.

If you will recall, I've said before that the fortunes of Alabama football have seemingly been tied to Democratic fortunes. Early 60s was the rise of Bryant's age of football and you had Kennedy in the White House. By the late 60s under Nixon Bryant had begun to fall into a funk. In the early 1970s Alabama installed the Wishbone which ushered in the success of the latter half of the 1970s (Carter admin). The 1980s were good for Republicans and bleak for Alabama. When Clinton was elected in 1992 Alabama won the national title and had several seasons following that were 10 win seasons. They faded somewhat with the Republican takeover of Congress, but were still strong through the remaining Clinton years (winning the SEC in 1999). Bush Jr. ushered in the dark ages of Alabama football until Nick Saban took over in 2007 and won the first of 3 national titles for Bama during Obama's first years as President. That domination has continued through his presidency and Bama is playing for another title on Monday.

So if Alabama loses Monday and Saban retires -- there should be mass panic among Democrats. If Alabama dominates and wins and Saban goes right back to recruiting and getting ready for another season, then look forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016.

There. I've made my forecast.

Here's where the rubber meets the road for you, though - if you could talk to Saban and convince him to take a dive on Monday on behalf of the country / party, would you do it?

Or, is it possibly the case that if Alabama *could/should* dominate but intentionally loses, might the democrats still win? That is, is the electoral result caused by Alabama actually winning, or by Alabama merely being good enough that they should win?

Nope. Roll Tide!

1. Religion (Alabama football)
2. Family
3. Country

In that order.

I'm unsure about the implications of an intentional dive. Maybe that would result in a 3rd party win? lol

Also, I don't know who Alabama is playing on Monday, but if they're from a democratic state, you could see each side defending the other's endzone, and a potentially record-setting number of safeties.

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:Also: My time tested political barometer, Alabama football, is being put to the test Monday. If they win it will be a strong year for the Democrats and the potential for a Hillary presidency. If they lose big it could mean that the Republicans will have a strong November.

If you will recall, I've said before that the fortunes of Alabama football have seemingly been tied to Democratic fortunes. Early 60s was the rise of Bryant's age of football and you had Kennedy in the White House. By the late 60s under Nixon Bryant had begun to fall into a funk. In the early 1970s Alabama installed the Wishbone which ushered in the success of the latter half of the 1970s (Carter admin). The 1980s were good for Republicans and bleak for Alabama. When Clinton was elected in 1992 Alabama won the national title and had several seasons following that were 10 win seasons. They faded somewhat with the Republican takeover of Congress, but were still strong through the remaining Clinton years (winning the SEC in 1999). Bush Jr. ushered in the dark ages of Alabama football until Nick Saban took over in 2007 and won the first of 3 national titles for Bama during Obama's first years as President. That domination has continued through his presidency and Bama is playing for another title on Monday.

So if Alabama loses Monday and Saban retires -- there should be mass panic among Democrats. If Alabama dominates and wins and Saban goes right back to recruiting and getting ready for another season, then look forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016.

There. I've made my forecast.

Here's where the rubber meets the road for you, though - if you could talk to Saban and convince him to take a dive on Monday on behalf of the country / party, would you do it?

Or, is it possibly the case that if Alabama *could/should* dominate but intentionally loses, might the democrats still win? That is, is the electoral result caused by Alabama actually winning, or by Alabama merely being good enough that they should win?

Nope. Roll Tide!

1. Religion (Alabama football)
2. Family
3. Country

In that order.

I'm unsure about the implications of an intentional dive. Maybe that would result in a 3rd party win? lol

Also, I don't know who Alabama is playing on Monday, but if they're from a democratic state, you could see each side defending the other's endzone, and a potentially record-setting number of safeties.

lol. It's Clemson so no risk of that.

Even if Bama loses, they probably still qualify as good enough to keep the Dem fortunes strong, I'd wager. They don't win a NC every time a Democrat is in office.

Man, now I'm focused on all of the theoretical physics implications of this. Like, what if Alabama and Clemson switched uniforms before the game? Does that change the electoral outcome?

ImLawBoy wrote:Even if Bama loses, they probably still qualify as good enough to keep the Dem fortunes strong, I'd wager. They don't win a NC every time a Democrat is in office.

That's true. It would take Saban leaving and a complete coaching hire meltdown I think.

El Guapo wrote:Man, now I'm focused on all of the theoretical physics implications of this. Like, what if Alabama and Clemson switched uniforms before the game? Does that change the electoral outcome?

Or if Alabama wins, but the title is stripped for recruiting violations. The election would be thrown into the House of Representatives.

Jaymann wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Man, now I'm focused on all of the theoretical physics implications of this. Like, what if Alabama and Clemson switched uniforms before the game? Does that change the electoral outcome?

Or if Alabama wins, but the title is stripped for recruiting violations. The election would be thrown into the House of Representatives.

Assuming that the title was stripped years afterwards (as is common), I would assume that would mean that a democratic president was impeached and removed / resigned.

Been listening to an album I haven't heard in over 30 years - Foreigner 4, which has been a treat (free for Amazon Prime).

Was thinking as I was listening - they probably aren't Trump's favorite band

Can we please get Sanders vs Trump? Pretty please with sugar on top?

Odds that either makes it to the ticket?

I'd put both at less than 33% and that saddens me.

tjg_marantz wrote:Can we please get Sanders vs Trump? Pretty please with sugar on top?

Odds that either makes it to the ticket?

I'd put both at less than 33% and that saddens me.

What are we, reality TV for Canadians?

Oh, wait...

Interesting...

Donald Trump’s rivals cling to the hope that the surprise GOP presidential frontrunner lacks the know-how to lure supporters to the polls, but POLITICO has learned that his campaign several months ago assembled an experienced data team to build sophisticated models to transform fervor into votes.

The team is led by two low-profile former Republican National Committee data strategists, Matt Braynard and Witold Chrabaszcz, and includes assistance from the political data outfit L2, according to multiple sources familiar with the effort...

...And, while the extent of the campaign’s data program remains unclear, it’s likely less robust than those built by the more traditional campaigns of his rivals, including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, who have combined to spend tens of millions of dollars on data...

...But the very existence of the Trump data program undermines the assumption that his campaign is uninterested in ― or unaware of ― the basic technological infrastructure needed to identify and mobilize voters. Such tools, used so effectively by Barack Obama during his two presidential campaigns, could be especially critical for Trump as he seeks to increase turnout among new or untraditional GOP voters.

If Trump can GOTV, he could easily win the GOP Nomination as it stands...

Has anyone commented on the kerfuffle going on in the UK? They've got a petition that has over 1/2 a million signatures that want Trump banned from the UK. It has enough signatures that the matter is going to be debated in parliament.

Trump org has fired back that it will stop plans to invest 700 million in Scotland (Trump owns some golf courses) if Trump is banned. I don't think that's unreasonable. People are suggesting that Trump is blackmailing the UK, which is hilarious. We hate you and you're not allowed to visit, but of course we want your money. You OWE it to us.

Then there are reports that earlier plans by the Trump Org have not materialized economic benefits as was promised. I assume they mean lies made so that they could procure zoning permits and such.

In any case, it's kind of funny to watch.

GreenGoo wrote:Has anyone commented on the kerfuffle going on in the UK? They've got a petition that has over 1/2 a million signatures that want Trump banned from the UK. It has enough signatures that the matter is going to be debated in parliament.

Trump org has fired back that it will stop plans to invest 700 million in Scotland (Trump owns some golf courses) if Trump is banned. I don't think that's unreasonable. People are suggesting that Trump is blackmailing the UK, which is hilarious. We hate you and you're not allowed to visit, but of course we want your money. You OWE it to us.

Then there are reports that earlier plans by the Trump Org have not materialized economic benefits as was promised. I assume they mean lies made so that they could procure zoning permits and such.

In any case, it's kind of funny to watch.

Isg was on it.


It feeds Trump's ego and makes some people in the UK feel like they're influencing the US election.

If Scotland can avoid a Trump "investment" they they'll be the real winners here.

Ah ok, cool. The investment thing is the latest news on it, to my understanding.

I think it's a mistake to think the signatories believe they are influencing the election. I think they just don't want Trump to come to their country. Period.

The "locals" in Scotland are basically reporting what you're suggesting, that Trump investments aren't exactly reaping dividends, locally.

GreenGoo wrote:Ah ok, cool. The investment thing is the latest news on it, to my understanding.

That and the fact that they're over 500K signatures. That would be like 2.5M in the US. I'd be pleasantly surprised if 2.5M in the US knew, say, who Ed Miliband even was, let alone would sign a petition for or against him.

Of course Trump is a career celebrity, not a career politician.

538 takes a (scary) look at Trump's supporters (and that wing of the GOP):

One way to understand Trump’s longevity is to look more closely at his supporters. Trump’s backers tend to be whiter, slightly older and less educated than the average Republican voter. But perhaps more importantly, his supporters have shown signs of being misinformed. Political science research has shown that the behavior of misinformed citizens is different from those who are uninformed, and this difference may explain Trump’s unusual staying power...

...As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

Kind of like Climate Change, or Thanks, Obama!