Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 6:03 pm**

Max Peck wrote:
Rip wrote:The majority by far has spoken.
Worst spelling of "plurality" I've seen all day.

has/have whatever.

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 6:23 pm**

Rip wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Rip wrote:The majority by far has spoken.
Worst spelling of "plurality" I've seen all day.
has/have whatever.

You're trying to fix the wrong word. Look up the definitions for "majority" and "plurality" and then check the percentage of the popular vote Trump received in the primaries to date. The majority (by far?) didn't want Trump, but they couldn't agree on who they did want, so now they're SOL.

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 6:37 pm**

Max Peck wrote:
Rip wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
Rip wrote:The majority by far has spoken.
Worst spelling of "plurality" I've seen all day.
has/have whatever.
You're trying to fix the wrong word. Look up the definitions for "majority" and "plurality" and then check the percentage of the popular vote Trump received in the primaries to date. The majority (by far?) didn't want Trump, but they couldn't agree on who they did want, so now they're SOL.

By the time it is over he will have secured more primary votes than any ever has. Polls have shown that a majority think whoever does that should be the candidate. The majority I speak of is in indirect not direct support.

The choice is whether they will continue to be a party that comes together to support the winning candidate or one who chooses to fracture. A fractured party is nearly impossible to reunite.

If they sabotage Trump from the inside I for one with withdraw from the party. Don't think I am alone, but perhaps, we will see. Still plenty of time for things to unfold.

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 7:17 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 7:57 pm**

That's way old data

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 8:23 pm**

RunningMn9 wrote:That's way old data

Because I'm lazy, I'll just list the popular vote numbers currently given in the respective Wikipedia articles, which appear to be sourced from here and here.

Clinton: 12,560,495 (56.20%)
Trump: 10,717,357 (40.21%)
Sanders: 9,446,132 (42.26%)
Cruz: 7,325,796 (27.49%)
Kasich: 3,764,238 (14.12%)
Rubio: 3,497,886 (13.12%)

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 8:29 pm**

The GOP ran out RINOs for decades while courting the hysteria, anger and xenophobia of those who voted for Trump. Trump is the DIRECT result of the propaganda of "government failure" that FOX and the GOP have sold for years. He's just not a social conservative or libertarian ideologue. Instead, Trump just willingly embraced the reactionary, anti-intellectual pig the GOP has become and let its latent racism take center stage.

Live by the Trump, die by the Trump. It's their own damn fault.

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 8:51 pm**

Max Peck wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote:That's way old data
Because I'm lazy, I'll just list the popular vote numbers currently given in the respective Wikipedia articles, which appear to be sourced from here and here.
Clinton: 12,560,495 (56.20%)

Trump: 10,717,357 (40.21%)

Sanders: 9,446,132 (42.26%)

Cruz: 7,325,796 (27.49%)

Kasich: 3,764,238 (14.12%)

Rubio: 3,497,886 (13.12%)

There's a running total here.

Of course you can't easily horserace these numbers. Primaries have their own dynamics.

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 9:44 pm**

Zarathud wrote:Live by the Trump, die by the Trump. It's their own damn fault.

Unless he wins.

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 10:57 pm**

It's still their fault. And everyone dies.

Posted: **Fri May 06, 2016 11:58 pm**

YellowKing wrote: It comes down to the fact I don't mess up very often. That's not bragging - I don't mess up because I have a lot of responsibility and I have to follow very rigorous processes and fail-safes to make sure I don't mess up. So when something does go down on my watch, it's a circus around here.

But fuck-up messes things up all the time. It's expected. So when he screws something up, people shrug their shoulders and say "Well, that's par for the course. Blame's on us for giving him that responsibility."

As an aside, that is incredibly shitty management. Are they that awful about other things? That's an amazing way to get your qualified people to quit and find a better company to work for.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 12:12 am**

Little Raven wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Live by the Trump, die by the Trump. It's their own damn fault.
Unless he wins.

Then the Republicans become the equivalent of the National Front or UKIP. I question whether a white nationalist party is going to be super successful in the long run, though - the demographics almost guarantee they will be marginalized.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 2:14 am**

gbasden wrote:
Little Raven wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Live by the Trump, die by the Trump. It's their own damn fault.
Unless he wins.
Then the Republicans become the equivalent of the National Front or UKIP. I question whether a white nationalist party is going to be super successful in the long run, though - the demographics almost guarantee they will be marginalized.

That would kill them in national elections, but embracing their inner KKK might make them a stronger regional party able to hold onto the House for the foreseeable future.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 4:19 pm**

After much contemplation I have narrowed the list of people I realistically think Trump may tap for a running mate. No particular order at this time.

Sen. Jeff Sessions; Early endorser and has already sent Stephen Miller to aide Trump so makes much sense.

Gen. James Mattis; Strong enough that some had already looked to him to run third party but he declined. Strong leader who is much respected.

Newt Gingrich; No one knows how to play the game any better. If Trump truly wants someone that can navigate the congress, he is as good as any.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 4:27 pm**

In a statement to the Washington Post, Trump said Ryan’s comments were “totally inappropriate” and ominously said that the two may “go our separate ways.”

“I told Reince that I thought it was totally inappropriate what Paul Ryan said and thought it was good for me politically,” he said. “But Reince feels, and I'm okay with that, that we should meet before we go our separate ways. So I guess the meeting will take place and who knows what will happen.”
Pierson said the businessman is likely to tell Ryan that by refusing to support him, he’s also going against the will of the people.

“Well, I think he’s gonna talk to Paul Ryan and just say look, you are not just against me. You are against a lot of your voters, and this is something that has been indicative,” Pierson said. “For the last couple of cycles you have had the leadership rejecting its own voters, silencing them, ignoring them, campaigning on one issue and not following through, and that’s why we have a nomination of Donald Trump.”

Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 5:21 pm**

Rip wrote:After much contemplation I have narrowed the list of people I realistically think Trump may tap for a running mate. No particular order at this time.

Sen. Jeff Sessions; Early endorser and has already sent Stephen Miller to aide Trump so makes much sense.

Gen. James Mattis; Strong enough that some had already looked to him to run third party but he declined. Strong leader who is much respected.

Newt Gingrich; No one knows how to play the game any better. If Trump truly wants someone that can navigate the congress, he is as good as any.

You're thinking logically. I'm putting my money on Ben Carson or Jesse Ventura. One is as crazy as Trump, the other is so bad he can't help but make Trump look better.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 6:06 pm**

Rip wrote: Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”[/url]

If you think Trump is a conservative, you're in for a rude awakening.

p.s. was making the entire post a link really necessary?

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 6:28 pm**

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote: Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”[/url]

If you think Trump is a conservative, you're in for a rude awakening.

p.s. was making the entire post a link really necessary?

That misses the point. The point is you either come together to support candidates or you don't. There is no exception that will do anything but make a mockery of the original sentiment.

If they wish to do this fine but the end result is next election if they manage to get a moderate candidate to win the nomination they will find no support from the remainder of the party. If they feel this way they should do the honorable thing and leave the party. I can at least respect that.

The remainder are doing the equivalent of drilling a hole upon the ship which they ride. It won't end well. Especially for them.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 6:46 pm**

Trump's spokesperson Pierson is on CNN all the time. I don't think I have ever seen a more empty talking head in all my years of watching talking heads.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 7:36 pm**

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote: Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”[/url]

If you think Trump is a conservative, you're in for a rude awakening.

p.s. was making the entire post a link really necessary?
That misses the point. The point is you either come together to support candidates or you don't. There is no exception that will do anything but make a mockery of the original sentiment.

If they wish to do this fine but the end result is next election if they manage to get a moderate candidate to win the nomination they will find no support from the remainder of the party. If they feel this way they should do the honorable thing and leave the party. I can at least respect that.

The remainder are doing the equivalent of drilling a hole upon the ship which they ride. It won't end well. Especially for them.

Or it will end with principled politicians refusing to follow someone they wholeheartedly feel is wrong...and rightfully so...rising up and leading a better party in the future.

You want sheep. Some don't. I respect those who are making a stand.

Besides, when has Trump ever shown party loyalty?

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 8:34 pm**

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote: Pierson said the last two Republican presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t true conservatives, but conservatives “were told to hold our noses and vote for the sake of the party.”
“These same people are now telling us that because their guy didn’t win, they want to hurt the party,” she said. “The issue here isn’t about Donald Trump. If you can’t hold yourself to the standard that you hold everyone else, the problem is with you.”[/url]

If you think Trump is a conservative, you're in for a rude awakening.

p.s. was making the entire post a link really necessary?
That misses the point. The point is you either come together to support candidates or you don't. There is no exception that will do anything but make a mockery of the original sentiment.

If they wish to do this fine but the end result is next election if they manage to get a moderate candidate to win the nomination they will find no support from the remainder of the party. If they feel this way they should do the honorable thing and leave the party. I can at least respect that.

The remainder are doing the equivalent of drilling a hole upon the ship which they ride. It won't end well. Especially for them.
Or it will end with principled politicians refusing to follow someone they wholeheartedly feel is wrong...and rightfully so...rising up and leading a better party in the future.

You want sheep. Some don't. I respect those who are making a stand.

Besides, when has Trump ever shown party loyalty?

That is fine like I said. But the next time they put forward a Romney or McCain they should not expect much support. I would certainly never vote for another candidate like that if they betray Trump this time. Which I am sure makes all you Democrats thrilled but any fool could see it would end any unity the Republican party has ever hoped for. Kinda proves the point they were RINOs all along.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 8:37 pm**

What honor is there in supporting something you don't believe in? That's not loyalty, that's cowardice.

Leaving the party simply condones the party's actions. It says to the party, "I'm leaving, but it's not you - it's me." I applaud those who choose to stay with the party but refuse to endorse Trump. They're fighting to hold Republicans to a higher standard. They're saying "Hey guys, we're better than this."

I mean seriously, can you imagine the damage Trump is going to do to the Republican brand if elected? In addition to what he's already done?

There is not one etched in stone meaning of "Republican" or "conservative." Most people don't adhere 100% to every checkbox on the party platform. The party has changed significantly over time, and will continue to do so. The folks being called RINOs right now may actually be the Republicans of the future who aren't racist backwards bigots.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 9:04 pm**

Rip wrote:That is fine like I said. But the next time they put forward a Romney or McCain they should not expect much support. I would certainly never vote for another candidate like that if they betray Trump this time. Which I am sure makes all you Democrats thrilled but any fool could see it would end any unity the Republican party has ever hoped for. Kinda proves the point they were RINOs all along.

"Betray Trump." I love it.

Trump seized the nomination (without a majority, remember) through the party's disarray. The degree to which Trump won support is precisely the degree to which the GOP has made itself the party of nativism, racism, jingoism, and bullying. There's a Republican Party that's something other than that, but Trump's victory only demonstrates that it doesn't have much to offer. He exploited its weakness, but that doesn't mean he legitimately leads it.

Don't pretend that there are principles or expertise behind Trump's ascendancy: every time Trump opens his mouth he demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's doing or what he's talking about. Just this week he proposed an approach to debt (shorting our obligations) that would have *wrecked* the US and global economy if it had actually emerged from the White House. His own surrogates were anxiously walking it back within 12 hours--this, even though money is supposed to be what Trump knows best.

Circumstances and chaos within the GOP have put Donald Trump within reach of global power, and that makes him a danger to everyone and everything. He's got to be stopped, and the Republicans willing to assist in that effort are the only Republicans worthy of respect.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 10:53 pm**

YellowKing wrote:. The party has changed significantly over time, and will continue to do so. The folks being called RINOs right now may actually be the Republicans of the future who aren't racist backwards bigots.

Or the past. I doubt St. Reagan would be readily accepted into today's Republican party.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 11:19 pm**

Trump has won far more votes than McCain or Romney. If he lacks support then they both lacked it even more. By the parties own measure once he crosses that 1237 delegate line (and he will easily) he IS the nominee and leads the party if you can't support him then you should leave the party.

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 11:23 pm**

And if I don't like what the current president does I should just leave the country, right? I shouldn't object and try to work for change?

Posted: **Sat May 07, 2016 11:45 pm**

The hunt for loyal delegates to the national convention — for weeks, a shadow primary that threatened to wrest the Republican nomination away from Donald Trump — appears to have come to an end.

Donald Trump vanquished his rivals at the ballot box and, for the first time, he pulled off the same feat in this weekend's delegate elections, punching tickets for dozens of allies from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Minnesota. Ted Cruz, who quit the GOP primary on Tuesday, had skewered Trump in these quiet battles at state and local GOP conventions. But his forces were nowhere to be seen Saturday.

Trump's supporters carried more than half of the 68 delegate elections in the four states holding contests this weekend — and most of the others were party elders who have vowed to support the GOP's nominee, even if they haven't explicitly backed Trump. Trump's campaign also showcased a tighter relationship with party insiders, coordinated with state-party leaders to make sure pro-Trump paraphernalia littered the conventions halls, and banners reading "Defeat Hillary! Vote Trump!" lined the rooms. One banner in South Carolina was even signed by delegates and marked for delivery to Trump's New York headquarters as a memento of his success in the state.
“Our campaign worked closely with conservative and state party leadership across the country to unite our party and select delegates to the Republican National Convention who represent the will of the people, and the record 10.7 million votes cast (and counting) in support of our nominee,” said Brian Jack, delegate management director for Trump, who attended the North Carolina convention.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/d ... tes-222934

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 1:39 am**

YellowKing wrote:Leaving the party simply condones the party's actions. It says to the party, "I'm leaving, but it's not you - it's me."

I am in the process right now of leaving the Republican party. Specifically because I am condemning the party's actions. I'm leaving. And it's all them, not me. I will not be associated with such madness. This is the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt...and now Trump? Fuck that noise.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 5:17 am**

RunningMn9 wrote:
YellowKing wrote:Leaving the party simply condones the party's actions. It says to the party, "I'm leaving, but it's not you - it's me."
I am in the process right now of leaving the Republican party. Specifically because I am condemning the party's actions. I'm leaving. And it's all them, not me. I will not be associated with such madness. This is the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt...and now Trump? Fuck that noise.

I can respect that.

I would challenge any those that Republicans in or running for office that don't plan to support Trump to also tell his supporters that they do not want their votes in their political endeavors. I mean they couldn't possibly want a bunch of racists and bigots voting for them could they?

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 7:16 am**

Rip wrote:I would challenge any those that Republicans in or running for office that don't plan to support Trump to also tell his supporters that they do not want their votes in their political endeavors. I mean they couldn't possibly want a bunch of racists and bigots voting for them could they?

Did you think those denouncing Trump were honestly going to get those votes to begin with?

Trump is where he is because of angry, divisive, racist rhetoric. A large portion of his backers want the entire system flushed and replaced with people just like them. I know you think that's a good thing as your oft stated goal has always been about sticking it to your arch nemesis "them damn liberals", and less about good governance. But thankfully, there are a large number of people in the United States that want more than just blind hatred to guide their leaders' hands.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 7:45 am**

This shit with Ryan is out of this wirld bizarre. I tend to believe someone like Ryan keeps good logs of his phone calls over the Donald who just seems to be off the cuff and just does not keep everything straight. Not a great trait for someone at this level.

Sometimes i wonder if Trump is not some mastermind and just happened to find out he was popular because he was on TV and started spouting birther nonsense a few years ago. Maybe people were like hell yeah and he just kept on saying outrageous stuff. (Not a serious theory). I just find it hard to believe this buffoon has a plan of any sort that works out.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 8:31 am**

Trump is the laziest lier I've ever seen. He just makes shit up on the fly. Then when someone calls him on it, he doubles down...even when there's readily available evidence to the contrary. He makes Hillary look like George Washington... and she's no slouch in the fibbing game herself.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 9:08 am**

Rip wrote:By the parties own measure once he crosses that 1237 delegate line (and he will easily) he IS the nominee and leads the party if you can't support him then you should leave the party.

The thing I don't understand about this is that Trump got that many votes despite the fact that he doesn't match up with the party platform at all. He's an outsider, he's not a social conservative (except in one-line soundbites). Ted Cruz was far more representative of the platform, and he was rejected.

Trump's leading the party because people were pissed off at the establishment, not because he's a sterling example of conservatism. Supporting him is to actually support the backlash against the establishment that you covet.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 9:55 am**

The GOP supplemented conservatives with angry racists in its southern strategy as far back as Nixon and Goldwater. There previously were always enough moderates to counterbalance the party. Running RINOs out of the party required motivating the remaining party faithful with constant efforts to legislate morality and appeals to angry reactions against Obama, Mexicans and Muslims.

The Republican party had a full slate to appeal to all of its constituencies, but they coalesced around Trump and Cruz for clear reasons. Now we know the breakdown of Republican racists (55%) vs. conservatives (35%) vs. moderates (under 10%). Trump isn't an outsider, even though he's not conservative. He's just not a politician -- but the best representative of apparently a majority of Republicans in almost every state.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 10:17 am**

Yeah, that was the analysis I'd read or heard last week...it's all a bit fuzzy now. Essentially Trump is a manifestation of the infamous "Southern Strategy". Instead of everyone using coded language or rallying behind politicians screaming about "states rights" as a thinly veiled reason for institutionalized racism, you now have someone that is literally planning to build a wall to keep people out. And apparently everyone is cool with that.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 12:04 pm**

I'm hazy on the relationship between tea partiers and Trumplings. They are not one and the same, yet they seem united by disdain for the party establishment. Is the tea party movement dead, has it been subsumed by Trump, does it claim Trump as its own? I see that tea party darling Sarah Palin is aligning herself with Trump, and I'm not sure what to read into that if it means anything beyond opportunism.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 12:14 pm**

Palin is the tea party and she sees Trump as her meal ticket. They are essentially one and the same at this point, I believe.

I heard yet another speech from Drumpf in which he tries yet again to claim that his sexist remarks are just him not being politically correct. I fear that a new breed of racism, sexism and bigotry will justify itself as such.

I really hope the sane portion of the GOP makes a stand, and that the voters turn out in droves to send a message that we aren't going to allow our country to go down this road.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 12:36 pm**

To steal a line from Leonard Pitts: Any country that would elect Trump president deserves to have Trump as president.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 12:40 pm**

Kraken wrote:I'm hazy on the relationship between tea partiers and Trumplings. They are not one and the same, yet they seem united by disdain for the party establishment. Is the tea party movement dead, has it been subsumed by Trump, does it claim Trump as its own? I see that tea party darling Sarah Palin is aligning herself with Trump, and I'm not sure what to read into that if it means anything beyond opportunism.

The Tea Party base is Trump's base, and I can't imagine that there will be any die-hard self-identified TP'ers who refuse to back Trump in November. They might differ on tactics and on a few policies, but Trump is the candidate who promises to break Washington and hurt Liberals. If Tea Partiers can't get a real Cultural Revolution going, they'll at least settle for scorched earth.

There are complications because Trump didn't emerge explicitly from the movement or from its media darlings, so there is some friction. Ted Cruz expected to be the Tea Party's champion this time, and he would have been so if Trump hadn't come along to make the dog whistles into explicit slogans.

The Tea Party has never been entirely uniform, though, and it has morphed a few ways since 2008. It's hard to remember, but Marco Rubio was considered a Tea Party hero when he entered the senate in 2010.

Posted: **Sun May 08, 2016 1:23 pm**

tgb wrote:To steal a line from Leonard Pitts: Any country that would elect Trump president deserves to have Trump as president.

To paraphrase a great legal defense, "That is our crime, it is also our punishment."

Octopus Overlords

The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse