Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:00 pm**

The more I read, the more it seems that there are simply people out there who feel that Trump is not only a viable candidate, but a desirable one. As much as that might seem obvious, it's somewhat of a revelation to me. These aren't ALL angry vote for any anti-establishment candidate people. They genuinely think should be the next president of the US because he'd make a good president.

That leaves me somewhat flabbergasted, and less expectant that some magic will happen and Trump with vanish in a puff of smoke.

Trump has a real shot at the Presidency, because people think Trump is someone they want in the white house. That's...eye opening. Well, you reap what you sow I guess. Should continue to be entertaining if you don't think of the ramifications too much.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:05 pm**

There's a reason that Keeping Up With the Kardashians is a media empire in the United States. We've got a lot of people in this country who value style over substance. I can (sadly) see where that might roll over into their political choices.

p.s. I make no promise that I wouldn't follow suit if Nathan Fillion or Bruce Campbell were to run for President.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:05 pm**

hepcat wrote:I still believe the old guard in the RNC wields enough power, numbers and influence to stop this at some point.

...or should I say hope?

Nothing in law stipulates that the nominee must be elected, and indeed primaries are a comparatively recent phenomenon; candidates used to be chosen in smoke-filled rooms. The party could conceivably overturn the will of the people and name someone else at their convention. It would be a nuclear option and the resulting shitstorm would surely split the party, at the very least, but it looks like it's already cleaving anyway so who knows.

Even if they don't go that far, I agree that the old guard will not go down without a fight. It's still their game to rig.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:07 pm**

Kraken wrote:
hepcat wrote:I still believe the old guard in the RNC wields enough power, numbers and influence to stop this at some point.

...or should I say hope?
Nothing in law stipulates that the nominee must be elected, and indeed primaries are a comparatively recent phenomenon; candidates used to be chosen in smoke-filled rooms. The party could conceivably overturn the will of the people and name someone else at their convention. It would be a nuclear option and the resulting shitstorm would surely split the party, at the very least, but it looks like it's already cleaving anyway so who knows.

Even if they don't go that far, I agree that the old guard will not go down without a fight. It's still their game to rig.

Trump would be almost obligated to mount a third party run if so, which would almost certainly doom whomever the GOP pick would be in that case. Unless they pick the Sphere of Rage - he might have a shot then.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:10 pm**

Trump has been spouting not so subtle hints that he would most assuredly run as a third party candidate.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:16 pm**

I am increasingly finding it plausible that Trump can win (more likely against Sanders, but also against Clinton). Mostly because he's an unconventional candidate that has been forcing well understood, well supported, conventional wisdom out the window.

This campaign is really opening the eyes to me that large numbers of people vote (at least this year) based on emotion rather than on rationale (like issues, qualifications, etc)

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:54 pm**

Despite apparently being totally wrong about the possibilities of Trump even winning the nomination, I still feel like he's going to get crushed in the general election, no matter his opponent.

Yes, he's popular with a sizable segment of the primary voting Republican base, but outside of that relatively small group his numbers are pretty dismal. Heck, if the rest of the primary vote wasn't divided among so many other candidates I don't think he'd even be doing so well in the primary race. He does seem to give energy to a block of voters who typically stay at home, but I still say on the whole that is a relatively small number.

About the only thing that would make me worry is if Bloomberg actually mounts that third party bid he's threatening to. That could siphon away enough moderate democrats to give the democratic candidate troubles potentially.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:57 pm**

Trump actually has a very narrow path to the nomination. He is actively disliked by as many Republicans as adore him, and that puts his support under a ceiling most candidates never face. If Trump gets the nomination, he'll still be coming in in the 50's or 60's, not the kind of near-unanimity most candidates enjoy by the time of the Convention. If it's a brokered show, so much the worse for him.

It was easy to imagine Gingrich and Santorum supporters coming around to Romney. It's much much harder to see that happening with Rubio's (and even some of Cruz's) supporters and Trump.

Something else to consider is that Trump isn't actually Teflon--his apparent invulnerability comes from having barely even been attacked. Bush tried a little bit (but haplessly), but none of the others have tried to take him to task for his outlandish positions. They've been attacking Trump the rival, not Trump the ideologue, because they know they need to win over Trump's followers to win the nom themselves.

The Democrats don't have this problem. They're just waiting until the Republicans are trapped in the bedroom with Donald, and then the harsh spotlight can shine on the things that make Trump as creepy and wrong as he is. There won't be enough months in the cycle to show them all.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:00 pm**

I live in SC and while the Republicans I know are split on which candidate to vote for, the one thing they are unified against is the Democrats. These are college graduates and they vote. Trump may not be their first choice, but he's seen as the far lesser evil when put up against Clinton and Sanders.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:38 pm**

Just to add a data point, one of the more conservative guys I know just posted a comment on facebook, "It's nice to see the Republicans and Democrats coming together to be terrified of Donald Trump."

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:42 pm**

El Guapo wrote:
Kraken wrote:
hepcat wrote:I still believe the old guard in the RNC wields enough power, numbers and influence to stop this at some point.

...or should I say hope?
Nothing in law stipulates that the nominee must be elected, and indeed primaries are a comparatively recent phenomenon; candidates used to be chosen in smoke-filled rooms. The party could conceivably overturn the will of the people and name someone else at their convention. It would be a nuclear option and the resulting shitstorm would surely split the party, at the very least, but it looks like it's already cleaving anyway so who knows.

Even if they don't go that far, I agree that the old guard will not go down without a fight. It's still their game to rig.
Trump would be almost obligated to mount a third party run if so, which would almost certainly doom whomever the GOP pick would be in that case. Unless they pick the Sphere of Rage - he might have a shot then.

Yep, for my scenario to play out they'd have to see it as a choice between losing this election and saving their party or winning this election and destroying their party, and then opt for the former. Unlikely, but not impossible.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:42 pm**

Holman wrote:Trump actually has a very narrow path to the nomination. He is actively disliked by as many Republicans as adore him, and that puts his support under a ceiling most candidates never face. If Trump gets the nomination, he'll still be coming in in the 50's or 60's, not the kind of near-unanimity most candidates enjoy by the time of the Convention. If it's a brokered show, so much the worse for him.

I wouldn't be so confident in that. Republicans will hold largely hold their nose and vote for Trump. The question I'd think will be, as it ever is, how many non voting republicans does he energize versus how many independents he will chase away. Where that gets interesting is when you put him against Clinton or Sanders and the same question of them. That said, I think Sanders is actually the stronger candidate. I think he will energize more democrats and he will draw more independents than Clinton will while also scaring less independents to Trump or not voting than she will either. I think Trump will scare a lot more independent voters to the left no matter if it's Clinton or Sanders.

I wouldn't count him out no matter who runs against, though. If he were going to flame out, you'd think it would have already happened. He's now at full on Kardashian Honey Boo Boo status. I don't get it but there it is.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:44 pm**

I demand a pick of Honey Boo Boo with Trump hair!

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:55 pm**

None already exists, but this is apparently real

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:26 pm**

Holman wrote: Something else to consider is that Trump isn't actually Teflon--his apparent invulnerability comes from having barely even been attacked. Bush tried a little bit (but haplessly), but none of the others have tried to take him to task for his outlandish positions. They've been attacking Trump the rival, not Trump the ideologue, because they know they need to win over Trump's followers to win the nom themselves.

Aside from making Mexicans build a wall to keep themselves out (as if that will even slow them down), what are his positions on anything? There is nothing of substance to attack. And whenever someone brings that up, Trump launches into an ad hominem attack, which is then responded to in kind.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:45 pm**

Micheal Hayden "frightened" by the prospect of a Trump presidency.

The former director of the Central Intelligence Agency says he would be "frightened" of a Donald Trump presidency, based on what the Republican frontrunner has said about Mexicans, immigrants, and preventing Muslims from entering the US.

General Michael Hayden, who also served as the head of the National Security Agency, tells the BBC's Katty Kay that such policies would be "destructive" for America.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:49 pm**

The part I don't understand about the Mexican's build the wall themselves plan.... What's to stop them from just finishing it and ending up on Our side of the wall; and then pointing to the wall and saying, 'Well now we can't get back home'.
Sounds like a half baked plan.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:04 pm**

Not to worry we have a plan for repatriating them. Best part we will even foot the bill.

As if I needed another reason.

Rev. Al Sharpton told attendees at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event Thursday he would flee the country if Donald Trump won the election, in order to avoid being deported by Trump.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/al-sh ... le/2584260

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:30 pm**

Rip wrote:
Rev. Al Sharpton told attendees at a Center for American Progress Action Fund event Thursday he would flee the country if Donald Trump won the election, in order to avoid being deported by Trump.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/al-sh ... le/2584260

Well, that's just demagoguery akin to Ted Nugent "threatening" to leave the country if Obama were re-elected. There's hoping...

noxiousdog wrote:Just to add a data point, one of the more conservative guys I know just posted a comment on facebook, "It's nice to see the Republicans and Democrats coming together to be terrified of Donald Trump."

Watching the GOP debate right now, and Trump is the only one that sounds even remotely sane (well, mostly...him and Kasich, I keep forgetting about Kasich for some reason) Pretty sure we all have a reason to be scared either way.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:46 pm**

Uh, really?

"How will you make Mexico pay for the wall?"

"I just will, and that wall just got ten feet taller"

*SMH*

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:52 pm**

I think Carson just endorsed his hands for president. (Would one be president and the other be veep?)

(I guess I would rather vote for a hand than for a dick...)

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:07 am**

Defiant wrote:Uh, really?

"How will you make Mexico pay for the wall?"

"I just will, and that wall just got ten feet taller"

*SMH*

Pretty sure he hinted at it coming from trade/tariffs? Not saying he could or exactly how but he mentioned the trade numbers and alluded to how much more that was. Then he made a crack about if Rubio or Cruz did it the cost would be $500B instead of $10B or whatever.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:07 am**

I think Carson just offered America a Hand Job.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:11 am**

Zarathud wrote:I think Carson just offered America a Hand Job.

Had to counter Hookers for Hillary with something.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:44 am**

Donald Trump wrote:I don't repeat myself. I don't repeat myself

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:59 am**

Neither Cruz nor Rubio could knock down Trump. They flailed, but came out worse in every exchange. Trump was devastating in this line alone: This guy's a choke artist, and this guy's a liar. Or I know you're embarrassed, I know you're embarrassed, but keep fighting. Keep swinging, men, swing for the fences.

Rubio did get in a solid hit about Trump repeating himself, but then Trump's lines received applause.

Jake Tapper said that Cruz and Rubio basically hit the same notes every time on the campaign trail and have not adapted to the anger and job anxiety that Trump taps into on a visceral level. Trump has been arguing that building a wall can reduce drugs, and that ability to change his message ultimately may be Trump's secret.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:16 am**

Defiant wrote:Uh, really?

"How will you make Mexico pay for the wall?"

"I just will, and that wall just got ten feet taller"

*SMH*

I did say "remotely"

The wall talk sounds stupid and arrogant, but every time Cruz opens his mouth, he just sounds batshit crazy.

I'm also not convinced any one of them could actually point Syria or Israel out on an unlabeled map.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:07 am**

Zarathud wrote:Neither Cruz nor Rubio could knock down Trump. They flailed, but came out worse in every exchange. Trump was devastating in this line alone: This guy's a choke artist, and this guy's a liar. Or I know you're embarrassed, I know you're embarrassed, but keep fighting. Keep swinging, men, swing for the fences.

Rubio did get in a solid hit about Trump repeating himself, but then Trump's lines received applause.

Jake Tapper said that Cruz and Rubio basically hit the same notes every time on the campaign trail and have not adapted to the anger and job anxiety that Trump taps into on a visceral level. Trump has been arguing that building a wall can reduce drugs, and that ability to change his message ultimately may be Trump's secret.

I seem to remember that Rubio landed a number of hits (like hiring illegal immigrants, bankruptcies, his repeating the same stuff, Trump not releasing his taxes, etc). Trump kept trying to bring up Christie's attack on Rubio, but that fell flat, though he did win applause with his personal insults. And I'm fairly sure the applause you're talking about was for Rubio, not Trump (though given how much time people talked over each other, it was frequently hard to tell who the audience was applauding for).

That said, the applause isn't always an indicator of how people outside the auditorium felt, and frankly that seems to often be hard to predict. I don't think Rubio or Cruz's attacks pulled away much or any support away from Trump, but it'll probably help push the undecideds away from Trump (but then, the last minute voters of at least soem of the primaries have not gone to Trump anyway).

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:11 am**

gilraen wrote: I'm also not convinced any one of them could actually point Syria or Israel out on an unlabeled map.

Cruz probably could, he's a very smart man, even if he intentionally comes off as not. Kasich and Trump might blunder, the same way typical Americans (and occasionally news networks) do. Rubio is still a bit of a mystery to me, as I'm not sure how much substance or not there is to him. Carson would point to a potted plant.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:41 am**

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:29 am**

You give Rubio WAAAYY too much credit for the hits he did land, and Trump pivoted to hit back each time. On repeating himself and having no plan except state lines, Trump had enough time to cough up the magic answer of "interstate competition" and no "monopolies." On the illegal immigrants, Trump reminded everyone he's the only "job creator." Rubio looked like he was swinging wildly, and Trump came off better in comparison, unfortunately.

The right answer to Trump on being audited is not letting him stand on that and being unfairly targeted -- it's hitting him again and saying he's audited because he stinks and if fhe IRS is looking at his taxes anyway, the American people should be able to decide if that's fair.

Cruz came close to outright declaring his unlike-ability a badge of honor, but being an asshole on stage doesn't help his cause. I'm starting to see (while still not liking) Trump's appeal now that the Republican field has narrowed.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:39 am**

I only saw clips of the Rubio "shots" on Trump last night and was wondering if Rubio always looks like a smarmy a-hole? His mugging to the crowd (moderator?) after each verbal barb seemed rather desperate, IMHO. From the little I saw, Trump didn't look rattled in any way.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:58 am**

That's what appeals to the tea party crowd, apparently. Mug for the camera, shout some insults, collect your votes. He learned it by watching Trump. Although Trump adds that extra special ingredient of fear of outsiders.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:11 am**

Saw this article today. Marco Rubio came out swinging at Trump, and one punch really landed: Trump University.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:48 am**

Possibly. But I'm guessing most people don't care about Trump University. They want to know about spouses cheating on one another, shady deals, email servers and whether or not someone stabbed another person as a teenager. University? That sounds like one of those fancy NYC values.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:57 am**

I thought last night was the first time Trump really got beat up a bit. Between Rubio and Cruz, I thought they landed a number of significant shots. Trump University, hiring illegals on his projects, no specifics to any plans, taxes. And I didn't think Trump's retorts ("you're a choke artist and you're a liar") were any good at all. They were total nonsequitors, and they made him look stupid, as did his response to the former Mexican president objecting to Mexico paying for Trump's wall ("that wall just got ten feet higher"). That's just stupid.

Of course, Trump's been a stupid, indefensible candidate since Day 1, so what do I know?

Only one guy on that stage is fit to be president, and that's Kasich. Did you listen to his response on the religious liberty question? To paraphrase, "People engaged in commerce should engage in commerce. Today you're refusing to serve gays, tomorrow what? Divorced people? You don't like someone's lifestyle because it doesn't comport with your religious beliefs? Sell them the damned cupcake and then say a prayer for them, but don't refuse them service."

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:13 am**

Kurth wrote:I thought last night was the first time Trump really got beat up a bit. Between Rubio and Cruz, I thought they landed a number of significant shots. Trump University, hiring illegals on his projects, no specifics to any plans, taxes. And I didn't think Trump's retorts ("you're a choke artist and you're a liar") were any good at all. They were total nonsequitors, and they made him look stupid, as did his response to the former Mexican president objecting to Mexico paying for Trump's wall ("that wall just got ten feet higher"). That's just stupid.

Of course, Trump's been a stupid, indefensible candidate since Day 1, so what do I know?

Only one guy on that stage is fit to be president, and that's Kasich. Did you listen to his response on the religious liberty question? To paraphrase, "People engaged in commerce should engage in commerce. Today you're refusing to serve gays, tomorrow what? Divorced people? You don't like someone's lifestyle because it doesn't comport with your religious beliefs? Sell them the damned cupcake and then say a prayer for them, but don't refuse them service."

I love that Trump gets asked a question about religious liberty and nobody mentions that he wants to ban a quarter of the population from coming to the U.S. based solely on their religion.

Apparently, religious liberty only refers to being able to bar contraception in insurance plans and making sure everyone says "Merry Christmas".

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:14 am**

Read a series of tweets that were live at the time summarizing the debate, so I "watched" the debate filtered through some newsie's eyes. Sounds like Trump got pounded in a few places, but landed some hits of his own. The debate was anarchy at times, while at other times when things were getting interesting (useful interesting, not Jerry Springer interesting) the moderator would step in and "save" someone.

Whether it's too late and whether it will matter to Trump's supporters is another thing.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:20 am**

GreenGoo wrote:Read a series of tweets that were live at the time summarizing the debate, so I "watched" the debate filtered through some newsie's eyes. Sounds like Trump got pounded in a few places, but landed some hits of his own. The debate was anarchy at times, while at other times when things were getting interesting (useful interesting, not Jerry Springer interesting) the moderator would step in and "save" someone.

Whether it's too late and whether it will matter to Trump's supporters is another thing.

I watched the whole wretched "show" from beginning to end. Trump got pounded.

That said, it's probably too little, too late.

And I'm now convinced that my seven year old could win the GOP nomination running on a platform of "Farts and Armpits!"

He and I practiced at breakfast this morning. What's your position on religious liberty? Farts! What should the requirements be for the next Supreme Court nominee? Armpits!

Winner.

Posted: **Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:21 am**

It's only too bad it took them this long to really take Trump's chances seriously enough to come out swinging.

That said, while Trump certainly was made to look stupid to most of us, I don't think anything last night was enough to significantly derail him at this point.

Octopus Overlords

The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow