Octopus Overlords

It wasn't his fault. It was the crappy headset they gave him.

Here's the ad in question.

Brian wrote:It wasn't his fault. It was the crappy headset they gave him.

Stop that. Anyone could see that was supposed to be my line.

Jeff V wrote:Apparently, there's an ad out there that shows Trump uttering some of his more misogynist statements. Yesterday morning, he told ABC News that he saw the ad and railed against Romney, who he said was behind it. Not two minutes later, he was telling The Today Show that he hasn't seen the ad and could not comment on it.

The lying sack of shit can't even keep his lies straight for two minutes!

It's not a matter of keeping his lies straight. For Trump the truth is ephemeral. In the next two minutes he will have a new truth. And sadly, none of this matters to his supporters.
Lawrence O'donnel posed a great question to his fellow media people. How do you deal with a man who is "pathological liar"?

and BTW, Trump is now denying that he ever said he would pay the legal fees of any Trump supporter who hit a protestor.

Hillary has so many ways to troll Trump in the Presidential debates about the stupid shit he says.

I am hoping she makes an off handed reference to his insecurity about his hand/penis size. If Rubio got under Donald's skin, can you imagine how insane he'd respond if Hillary used it to nail him?

Trump's aura is built on his machismo and selling himself as a "winner" to the public. The Democrats MUST burst that bubble. It would make for GREAT reality TV and cut directly into Trump's temperament, leadership and confidence. And there's NO WAY Trump doesn't take the bait. Get him off balance, exploit his insecurity, then deliver a knock out punch to his ego/public persona.

Zarathud wrote:Hillary has so many ways to troll Trump in the Presidential debates about the stupid shit he says.

I am hoping she makes an off handed reference to his insecurity about his hand/penis size. If Rubio got under Donald's skin, can you imagine how insane he'd respond if Hillary used it to nail him?

Trump's aura is built on his machismo and selling himself as a "winner" to the public. The Democrats MUST burst that bubble. It would make for GREAT reality TV and cut directly into Trump's temperament, leadership and confidence. And there's NO WAY Trump doesn't take the bait. Get him off balance, exploit his insecurity, then deliver a knock out punch to his ego/public persona.

I disagree. Others have tried and failed and she is no better at it than them.

She on the other hand hasn't really been attacked on many issues. Trump will have no qualms about throwing them out there left and right. She is used to getting to pick her questions and control the discussion. He won't let her do that.

It will be a very tight and a very vicious battle.

I agree about it being entertaining though.

I truly believe that Trump is a diehard misogynist, for realz, so I'm hoping he loses his shit completely when she starts slapping him around, or beats him to the white house.

edit: There is zero chance Clinton loses any sane debate to Trump. It's also highly unlikely that Trump can get under her skin. The people who like Trump will feel he got the upper hand, and the rest of world will continue to wonder what they are smoking.

Clinton has sat in rooms filled with hostile enemies who grilled her incessantly for hours. If you think Trump is going to get the best of her, you're dreaming. At best Trump will call her unattractive, and then appeal to the audience to agree with him.

Trump on the other hand has spent his life surrounded by yes men. If a lame comment about small hands can get under his skin (which we've already seen), he's doomed.

Rip wrote: She on the other hand hasn't really been attacked on many issues.

Clinton's lucky no one has ever attacked her. Some politicians live a charmed life.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote: She on the other hand hasn't really been attacked on many issues.

Clinton's lucky no one has ever attacked her. Some politicians live a charmed life.

I'm not talking about "people".

I'm talking about journalists who have been interviewing her and opponents/moderator in debates. Distant history is just that, she hasn't faced the hardballs as a POTUS candidate that her husband did......yet.

Defiant wrote:Here's the ad in question.

Effective. And the approach is just beginning.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... -lead.html

Jaymann wrote:

Defiant wrote:Here's the ad in question.

Effective. And the approach is just beginning.

Very effective. And imagine what happens when you see these attacks played out live on national television. Trump is going to self-destruct if Hillary plays hardball like this against him during the debates. Destroy or exploit Trump's macho image, and win.

What steam game do you want to bet on this, Rip?

Exit Polls: 4/10 GOP Voters Would Consider Going 3rd Party If It's Trump vs. Clinton.

That would certainly drain Trump's voting pool.

Zarathud wrote:

Jaymann wrote:

Defiant wrote:Here's the ad in question.

Effective. And the approach is just beginning.

Very effective. And imagine what happens when you see these attacks played out live on national television. Trump is going to self-destruct if Hillary plays hardball like this against him during the debates. Destroy or exploit Trump's macho image, and win.

What steam game do you want to bet on this, Rip?

Happy to bet but we need something measureable onto which to wager. Since I know you will try to claim victory no matter how splendidly she fails.


Might as well leave the game open for now. No telling what we might want that far in the future.

Rage, rage against the dying of the Trump, Rip.

hepcat wrote:Rage, rage against the dying of the Trump, Rip.

Nah, no rage from me.

I just wish if he is going to disintegrate that he would do it now so Cruz could have a shot.

Chaz wrote:Hearing the phrase "I have a good brain and I've said a lot of things" said by a presidential candidate is just amazing.

Not to mention hilarious.

Jaymann wrote:Drumpf names his top foreign policy advisor.

Drumpf was also asked on Wednesday morning if his foreign policy was “neoisolationist,” to which he responded “I wouldn’t say that at all.”

Because he can't pronounce it?

hepcat wrote:Exit Polls: 4/10 GOP Voters Would Consider Going 3rd Party If It's Trump vs. Clinton.

That would certainly drain Trump's voting pool.

He's picking up others though. And I'll believe that 4/10 figure when I see it. Trump, as per the PBS documentary I watched, has been consistently underestimated his entire life. I predict it will not only be a tight election, but he may well win it.

msduncan wrote: He's picking up others though. And I'll believe that 4/10 figure when I see it.

I'm sure that number will drop during the general election, provided Trump can unify the party, but it's a terrible place to start from (compare that with 30% of Sanders supporters saying they won't vote for Clinton which translates to ~13% of the voters in the Democratic primary).

And while he does have an appeal to some independents, to be sure, his unfavorables are very high among independents. unless he can change that, he'll hit a ceiling of how much support he can get from them.

msduncan wrote: Trump, as per the PBS documentary I watched, has been consistently underestimated his entire life.

Give me a break. Underestimated by who? All those people willing to bankroll his business ventures, both failed and successful? I'm sure he's had a lot of difficulty getting credit because they underestimated him. I will say that people definitely underestimate what a slimeball he is. It's like watching Andrew Dice Clay's persona get nominated for candidacy of the PotUS. People absolutely overestimate him. Branding himself a winner is the only thing he's done well.

As far as generating wealth goes, he has done significantly worse than the average joe would have with the same starting capital.

Who said he would be selling watches on the street in NY if not for his inheritance? That was bang on.

GreenGoo wrote: Underestimated by who?

The pundits that said he wouldn't become a contender in the primary? His opponents who failed to take him seriously or do any opposition research on him until it was too late?

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: Underestimated by who?

The pundits that said he wouldn't become a contender in the primary? His opponents who failed to take him seriously or do any opposition research on him until it was too late?

Please. My comment was in direct reference to msd's comments about Trump being underestimated his whole life. Assuming his whole life isn't limited to the last year or so...

Was he underestimated when he ran in 2000? Is he different this time? Has he learned from previous failures and come up with a new plan that everyone underestimated?

He's the exact same doofus he was then, the only difference is that people decided he'd make a good president this time around. That's not underestimating Trump, that's underestimating the public's disatisfaction with politics as usual.

"Thank you, Paul. Tonight's Top Ten category: Global Risk.

Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. The research firm warns he could disrupt the global economy and heighten political and security risks in the US. However, it does not expect Mr Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton who it sees as "his most likely Democratic contender".

He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea. China encountering a "hard landing" or sharp economic slowdown and Russia's interventions in Ukraine and Syria preceding a new "cold war" are among the events seen as more dangerous.

"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability. The EIU ranking use a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".

The assessment:

Donald Trump wins the US presidential election
Moderate probability, High impact; Risk intensity = 12
March 16th 2016

Introduction
The businessman and political novice, Donald Trump, has built a strong lead in the Republican party primary, and looks the firm favourite to be the party's candidate in the US presidential election in November.

Analysis
Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision - but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a "currency manipulator". He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jiadhi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war - and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.

Conclusion
Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress - albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.

How awesome is it that they see Trump as being on par with global jihadism.

Rip wrote: I disagree. Others have tried and failed and she is no better at it than them.

She on the other hand hasn't really been attacked on many issues. Trump will have no qualms about throwing them out there left and right. She is used to getting to pick her questions and control the discussion. He won't let her do that.

It will be a very tight and a very vicious battle.

I agree about it being entertaining though.

I agree personal attacks don't work on Donald. And they belittle the attacker - just ask Rubio. Rubio got under Trumps skin not by his personal attacks but by pointing out his business practices during the debate on live TV. Trump counter attacked after the debate with a slew of little marco remarks and when Rubio responded with the personal attacks, he lost the high road. The personal attack is Donald's wheelhouse, very few are good at it - but none of the other current presidential crop are good at it.

OTOH, I don't know where you come up with this idea that Hillary has not been attacked on the issues. That is just Twilight zone absurd. Just within the past few months, she had to sit for 11 hours in a congressional investigation on Bengazi. When her husband was president she went under continual attack by media and politicos. I think that is the one thing she can handle is any type of attack thrown at her by Donald. If by attacked on the issues, if you are referring to Bernie Sanders, well It's true Bernie is not touching her on the Email controversy, however during the Telemundo debate they did question her on the Email controversy. If you recall they even asked her would she resign if she was indicted. But Bernie is not laying down on the sword for Hillary, he is still attacking Hillary on her go to war vote during the Bush 2 era. He's attacking her on her support of NAFTA and early support of the TPP. And of course he is attacking her for making money on giving speeches to wall street types.

As far as presidential debates, the candidates don't control the questions and discussions - the moderators do.

As far as I see it, Trump has so far not managed to be able to sustain any type of substantive discussion on the issues because his talks usually dissolve into some kind of side bar or personal attack. He would have got a good chance to practice with the smaller republican field. But as you now know, he is not doing any more debates. Meanwhile both Hillary and Bernie are going to be in great shape for any upcoming one on one debates in the final campaign.

Rubio was a myth, and the high road would have led him nowhere because there was never a large voter base of support.

Trump doesn't want another debate for a reason -- it might damage his carefully crafted image as a "winner." Hillary can hit where Rubio cannot, and she has the possibility of hitting below the belt and twisting the knife because she's not only a woman but a formidable opponent. What's Trump going to do after his constant personal attacks so far? Complain that Hillary is being unfair?

Everyone but Rip and msd knows that Hillary will win the Presidential debates on policy, but no one knows if she can knock Trump down. No Republican could, so Hillary taking a shot and cracking Trump's confidence would be massive news. If Trump proves anything this election, it's that you WANT news to be constantly talking about you and being unstoppable.

It would be a mistake to underestimate Trump's media story. Hillary needs to burst Trump's bubble. It would be even more effective if she takes him down in a made for reality TV moment.

Regardless of whether Rubio was the real deal regarding his presidential ambitions, his attack against Trump on that debate night was successful. It did exactly what you said Hillary should do, bust his bubble. Donald's lies about Trump University and the Polish workers he hired for one of his jobs was easy to check thanks to smart phones and tablets and PCs. It did hit hard against Donald's winner image. The template is easy, expose the lies, back it up with facts and don't let him side bar away. During the debate when Trump side barred a question with a personal attack, Rubio took a lesson from Chris Christy and said "there he goes again with the personal attacks not answering the question." The next day Trump, Trump calls in Christy supplicant, ignores the substance of Rubio's attack and then proceeds to unload some new personal attacks against Marco talking about his ears, his make up and his height - Marco responds with the infamous little hands remark and Trump eventually comes back on the national stage with his dick size and in todays world, Trump wins the day.

If I was advising Hillary, I would tell her not to get down and dirty with Trump. Don't let the message of the day be that politics is dirty. Let it be that Trump is dirty. Getting Trump is easy - staying on target is not.

Rip wrote: That's the ballgame folks!

Pete Rose's Attorney: Rose Never Sent Trump a Signed Baseball.

"Pete has made a point not to 'endorse' any particular presidential candidate," Ray Genco said in a statement to NBC News. "Though he respects everyone who works hard for our country — any outlet that misinterpreted a signed baseball for an endorsement was wrong. Pete did not send any candidate a baseball or a note of endorsement."

Genco also told The Washington Post, "We do not know how Mr. Trump got the ball. I can't authenticate the ball from some Twitter picture." He added: "I can't speak to how Trump got the ball. Pete didn't send it. I made that clear."

Well, whom are you going to believe: a disgraceful liar who tried to exploit America's most important institution for personal gain, or Major League all-time top hitter Pete Rose?

Donald Trump's campaign requires volunteers to sign a contract that forbids them from criticizing the Republican presidential front-runner, his family members, any Trump businesses or products, or his campaign. The six-page contract, reviewed in full by the Daily Dot, theoretically lasts for the entirety of a volunteer's life.

Daily Dot

How anyone supports this sad, petty, and pathetic man is beyond me.

Trump names who he consults for foreign policy advice:

“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I’ve said a lot of things," Trump said during an early-morning phone interview on MSNBC. "I know what I'm doing, and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people, and at the appropriate time I'll tell you who the people are," he continued. “But I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff.”

D.A.Lewis wrote: OTOH, I don't know where you come up with this idea that Hillary has not been attacked on the issues.

Those aren't the issue. Foreign policy. Economic policy. Education. Job growth. Immigration. Those are relevant issues. Benghazi and her email server are GOP talking points that avoid confronting real issues. Aside from building the Great Wall of Mexico and hiding from the scary A-rabs, Trump hasn't put forth much of anything on real issues and until he does, attacking Hillary on her positions won't get them anywhere.

GreenGoo wrote:

msduncan wrote: Trump, as per the PBS documentary I watched, has been consistently underestimated his entire life.

Give me a break. Underestimated by who? All those people willing to bankroll his business ventures, both failed and successful? I'm sure he's had a lot of difficulty getting credit because they underestimated him. I will say that people definitely underestimate what a slimeball he is. It's like watching Andrew Dice Clay's persona get nominated for candidacy of the PotUS. People absolutely overestimate him. Branding himself a winner is the only thing he's done well.

As far as generating wealth goes, he has done significantly worse than the average joe would have with the same starting capital.

Who said he would be selling watches on the street in NY if not for his inheritance? That was bang on.

Well, according to the documentary -- by those who said he couldn't revitalize Time Square in NYC, and those who said he would fail in revitalizing Atlantic City. He sets big goals and he achieves them for the most part. Every successful businessman is going to fail on some ventures.

So when does The Donald start drifting to the center?

Holman wrote: Well, whom are you going to believe: a disgraceful liar who tried to exploit America's most important institution for personal gain, or Major League all-time top hitter Pete Rose?

Just when I was about to jump in and defend Pete Rose, I saw what you did there.

Holman wrote:Well, whom are you going to believe: a disgraceful liar who tried to exploit America's most important institution for personal gain, or Major League all-time top hitter Pete Rose?

tru1cy wrote:So when does The Donald start drifting to the center?

Not sure. He is running a completely unconventional campaign that has turned everything I thought I knew about politics on it's head. Then again, he's just the manifestation of Republican core voter anger at the Boehner/Rubio/McCain/Romney/Ryan establishment -- so if he keeps up the anger politics he will continue to do well. I think if he's serious about November he's going to have to pivot soon.

I'm also not entirely convinced he's not a page out of the old Clinton's handbook still.

1992: Upstart Ross Perot comes onto the scene and siphons a ton of votes away from Bush Sr. Then in late August/early September of the election year it began looking like he was going to win the election. He was ahead in most major polls. What does he do? He drops out of the race for 2 weeks and then gets back in. Some of his supporters (poached from Bush Sr.) rejoin support for him. Enough to keep Bush Sr. from winning. A significant percentage abandon him. Enough to keep him from winning. I'm convinced to this day that he was working in cooperation with the Clintons.


It seems very convenient that Trump comes along and is winning the nomination. He wins the nomination, loses the general election, and we have another Clinton in the white house. This time we get the bitch instead of the guy that was actually qualified.

msduncan wrote:

tru1cy wrote:So when does The Donald start drifting to the center?

Not sure. He is running a completely unconventional campaign that has turned everything I thought I knew about politics on it's head. Then again, he's just the manifestation of Republican core voter anger at the Boehner/Rubio/McCain/Romney/Ryan establishment -- so if he keeps up the anger politics he will continue to do well. I think if he's serious about November he's going to have to pivot soon.

Once he pivots, if he pivots, will he be seen by the grassroots as a sellout? While his message now sells with his base that same message alienates everyone else he will need to win the general. Angry white people isn't enough anymore to win the general election

msduncan wrote:

tru1cy wrote:So when does The Donald start drifting to the center?

Then again, he's just the manifestation of Republican core voter anger at the Boehner/Rubio/McCain/Romney/Ryan establishment -- so if he keeps up the anger politics he will continue to do well.

But the primaries so far does not indicate that a even a simple majority of potential GOP voters are influenced by the FUD that Trump is churning. How many of these roused rabble will sustain their indignation at the establishment enough to bother voting in November if Trump betrays them by starting to pander toward the ostensibly larger base (or left of that!)? I expect Hillary will dig in at the center and Trump will be left defending the fringes since he would strive to be nothing at all like Hillary.

msduncan wrote:I'm also not entirely convinced he's not a page out of the old Clinton's handbook still.

1992: Upstart Ross Perot comes onto the scene and siphons a ton of votes away from Bush Sr. Then in late August/early September of the election year it began looking like he was going to win the election. He was ahead in most major polls. What does he do? He drops out of the race for 2 weeks and then gets back in. Some of his supporters (poached from Bush Sr.) rejoin support for him. Enough to keep Bush Sr. from winning. A significant percentage abandon him. Enough to keep him from winning. I'm convinced to this day that he was working in cooperation with the Clintons.


It seems very convenient that Trump comes along and is winning the nomination. He wins the nomination, loses the general election, and we have another Clinton in the white house. This time we get the bitch instead of the guy that was actually qualified.

That's one hell of a long con....