Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote:Probably over the next month Trump will make a big show of walking back his extremes and moderating his tone. He'll make speeches that stand out for sounding so much more presidential than before. We'll be expected to believe that this 70-year-old scam-artist has completely changed himself in the course of a few weeks, and his ability to do so will be presented as a sign of leadership, adaptability, and political genius.

All the offensive idiocy of the past will be laughed off as just the heated rhetoric of the campaign. We'll be expected to take Trump seriously, and lots of people will.

I doubt it. If that were the plan then he would've done so already.

I thought that he would start it after he won the nomination - and to be fair he did for a few days until he opened his mouth again and ruined it. I don't think it's a matter of he *won't* do it - I don't think he actually *can* do it. In other words, I don't think the guy can change, even if just to put on an act. He can't help himself.

And from his standpoint, he's probably wondering why the hell he should. He got nominated despite (or maybe because of) his brashness, so no need to tamper with an (apparently) winning formula.

msduncan wrote:

So is this the equivalent of saying I have black friends, I'm not racist?

yes

YellowKing wrote:I thought that he would start it after he won the nomination - and to be fair he did for a few days until he opened his mouth again and ruined it. I don't think it's a matter of he *won't* do it - I don't think he actually *can* do it. In other words, I don't think the guy can change, even if just to put on an act. He can't help himself.

And from his standpoint, he's probably wondering why the hell he should. He got nominated despite (or maybe because of) his brashness, so no need to tamper with an (apparently) winning formula.

But it has recently ceased to be a winning formula. Trump's numbers started seriously tanking with his comments on Judge Curiel, and Orlando has accelerated his decline. Everything that won him the GOP nomination is (as predicted) having the opposite effect on the general electorate.

Trump is going to be under a huge amount of pressure to get his act together and stay on some sort of script in the run-up to the convention and beyond. The party knows he doesn't have a real chance of winning the White House, but they've got to halt the damage he's doing down-ticket.

On top of his terrible message, Trump is apparently simply an awful campaign boss. He doesn't know how to do anything but get media attention, and most of that has gone negative. Republicans are saying that big donors are all turning away, and Trump has no ground game at all. There was news just the other day that a major Trump rally planned in Texas (in the city--for some reason--where the Muslim clock kid was treated like he made a bomb) had to be canceled because the campaign didn't even contact the police department until something like 48 hours ahead of time.

And, of course, he's up against Hillary Clinton, who's sitting on piles of campaign cash (she barely spent against Sanders) and has a huge organization with literally decades of experience at doing precisely this.

naednek wrote:

msduncan wrote:

So is this the equivalent of saying I have black friends, I'm not racist?

Almost. A slightly better analogy would be someone saying that they have black friends and so they can't be racist, but they're actually lying about having black friends.

10 Examples of Donald Trump Being Racist

I get it - I hate the knee-jerk cries of racism against the Republican policy, because clearly not all Republicans are racist and to paint people with that broad a brush seems akin to what you're accusing them of.

In this instance, however, there's ample evidence.

Also, my in-laws are about the most racist people I know and they have a few black friends (you know, the clean, well-spoken kind). So getting your picture taken with black people doesn't automatically exclude you from being a bigot.

Armitage

Richard Armitage, who held top national security positions in the administrations of former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, said he would vote for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her likely Republican rival, Donald Trump.

"If Donald Trump is the nominee, I would vote for Hillary Clinton," Armitage, who served as a deputy secretary of State under Bush and as an assistant secretary of Defense under Reagan, told Politico on Thursday.

"He doesn't appear to be a Republican. He doesn't appear to want to learn about the issues. So I'm going to vote for Mrs. Clinton."

Oof
Ignore the article.

Just take a gander at the comments section. That has to be the dumbest collection of human beings alive (from both sides). And they all get to vote. If 'Merica is headed down the shitter, look no further than the gross ignorance of the populace at large.

Isgrimnur wrote:Armitage

Richard Armitage, who held top national security positions in the administrations of former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, said he would vote for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her likely Republican rival, Donald Trump.

"If Donald Trump is the nominee, I would vote for Hillary Clinton," Armitage, who served as a deputy secretary of State under Bush and as an assistant secretary of Defense under Reagan, told Politico on Thursday.

"He doesn't appear to be a Republican. He doesn't appear to want to learn about the issues. So I'm going to vote for Mrs. Clinton."

If Thorin Oakenshield backs Clinton, that's good enough for me. Except I thought he was English...

RunningMn9 wrote:Oof
Ignore the article.

Just take a gander at the comments section. That has to be the dumbest collection of human beings alive (from both sides). And they all get to vote. If 'Merica is headed down the shitter, look no further than the gross ignorance of the populace at large.

What's funny is that unless a candidate is specifically mentioned, you can't really tell which side the commenter is on.

Holman wrote:Probably over the next month Trump will make a big show of walking back his extremes and moderating his tone. He'll make speeches that stand out for sounding so much more presidential than before. We'll be expected to believe that this 70-year-old scam-artist has completely changed himself in the course of a few weeks, and his ability to do so will be presented as a sign of leadership, adaptability, and political genius.

All the offensive idiocy of the past will be laughed off as just the heated rhetoric of the campaign. We'll be expected to take Trump seriously, and lots of people will.

Uhh, no I don't think that will happen at all. Trump will keep being Trump.

El Guapo wrote:

Holman wrote:Probably over the next month Trump will make a big show of walking back his extremes and moderating his tone. He'll make speeches that stand out for sounding so much more presidential than before. We'll be expected to believe that this 70-year-old scam-artist has completely changed himself in the course of a few weeks, and his ability to do so will be presented as a sign of leadership, adaptability, and political genius.

All the offensive idiocy of the past will be laughed off as just the heated rhetoric of the campaign. We'll be expected to take Trump seriously, and lots of people will.

I doubt it. If that were the plan then he would've done so already.

This. Plus he already tried and within a week was back to being himself, or the persona he used to get this far anyway.

I read a right leaning article and it was all about Trump's complete failure to have any campaign strategy at all, how random it all is, how Reps are left holding the bag, trying to pick up the pieces every time Trump says something.

One point I found compelling was that the internal audit report of the State Department had a lot of ammo for the Reps to use against Hillary, but within days of the report coming out, Trump was up to his usual, and the report just got left in the dust. This was particularly noteworthy because at the time Hillary was focused on beating Sanders. It should have been 6 free weeks of the GOP going after Hillary while she was distracted by just trying to become the nominee, but instead it was all "what did Trump say today?"

Trump is causing so much damage that the GOP are left in permanent defensive damage control from their own candidate, while HIllary is now free to go after Trump with no distractions and the full weight of her war chest.

If Trump has to be the nominee, I can't say I'm unhappy about how much he seems to be undercutting himself.

The Donald's campaign commercials go in an unusual direction.

Mr Bismarck wrote:The Donald's campaign commercials go in an unusual direction.

holy shit I love that

AWS260 wrote:

Mr Bismarck wrote:The Donald's campaign commercials go in an unusual direction.

holy shit I love that

I had to watch that twice, and now I'm going to vote for him.

Most terrifying acid flashback ever. Thank you for that.

YellowKing wrote:
I get it - I hate the knee-jerk cries of racism against the Republican policy, because clearly not all Republicans are racist and to paint people with that broad a brush seems akin to what you're accusing them of.

I know that there's not a whole lot of love around these parts for Bill Maher (other than one or two of us), but this has a ring of truth to it.

The co-chair for Donald Trump’s U.S. House Leadership Committee thinks it unfair to think of him as a surrogate for Trump and he's really getting sick and tired of all these tricky questions.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) was one of the first congressmen to endorse Trump and was tasked by the campaign with ginning up support for the presumptive GOP nominee on Capitol Hill. Yet he distanced himself from the candidate on Thursday when confronted with a group of reporters on his way off the House floor.

“I am not a surrogate,” Hunter told The Hill later that afternoon, explaining why he refused to answer their questions about Trump. “I am a congressman. I can't speak for anybody else but me.”

"Everybody's asking me to explain all these things that he said," Hunter continued. "Some of these things, I don't know what Donald Trump is thinking. ... I don't know where Donald Trump is coming from."

Sure, you were cool defending him attacking the judge and even the arm grabby incident, but gosh darnit I don't need to stand here and answer for his claim US soldiers got rich off of stealing pallets of money in Iraq. Is this guy really so dumb that he thinks he gets to not own Trump's bile when he's a Trump co-chair in the House? I tied this stone around my neck and dove into the deep end, but ignore the stone!

Ryan

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) may be supporting Donald Trump, but the Republican leader says he would not ask others in his party to back the presumptive nominee if it is against their conscience.

"The last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that's contrary to their conscience. Of course, I wouldn't do that," Ryan told NBC News' Chuck Todd in an interview for "Meet the Press," a portion of which aired Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Ryan remarked, "Look, believe me, Chuck, I get this. This is a very strange situation. This is a very unique nominee."

Yeah. That's Steve Scalise's job.

tgb wrote:

YellowKing wrote:
I get it - I hate the knee-jerk cries of racism against the Republican policy, because clearly not all Republicans are racist and to paint people with that broad a brush seems akin to what you're accusing them of.

I know that there's not a whole lot of love around these parts for Bill Maher (other than one or two of us), but this has a ring of truth to it.

Maher is an equal opportunity offender. Trump Republicans just present more and bigger targets of opportunity.

Kraken wrote:

tgb wrote:

YellowKing wrote:
I get it - I hate the knee-jerk cries of racism against the Republican policy, because clearly not all Republicans are racist and to paint people with that broad a brush seems akin to what you're accusing them of.

I know that there's not a whole lot of love around these parts for Bill Maher (other than one or two of us), but this has a ring of truth to it.

Maher is an equal opportunity offender. Trump Republicans just present more and bigger targets of opportunity.

Yeah, Maher annoys me because of how he says things, not because of what he actually says (usually). He's far too fond of smugly laughing at his own jokes for my taste.

Saw a Maher show in Vegas a couple of months ago and it was great. He's very smart and funny and you don't have to agree with his politics to see that.

Pyperkub wrote:Saw a Maher show in Vegas a couple of months ago and it was great. He's very smart and funny and you don't have to agree with his politics to see that.

I don't think he's funny at all. Smart, very much so. But all of the funny goes out the window with his condescending and smug presentation. The second he turns on that shit, which is about ten seconds into anything he seems to do all I go into bored distracted mode and can't do anything but think "Jesus, can't he afford a better makeup artist? It like he's wicked witch of the west melting in mascara." (Wait, mascara is the not quite skin colored goop women put on their faces or is that just called cover up?) The content of his message and any funny meaning that goes along with it, goes out with "You're an ass."

(Also to tgb, I was under the impression there was a whole lot Maher love around here)

LOL.

Enough wrote:

LOL.

And that poll is from May - his numbers are even worse now.

Isn't it too early for polls to matter?

An interesting read.

RunningMn9 wrote:An interesting read.

Read that a while ago. I thought it was a really good read.

Exodor wrote:And that poll is from May - his numbers are even worse now.

Actually, it isn't. That poll is from 16 June. However, he's citing the result when the only choices are Clinton vs Trump. When you add an Other option, the poll breaks Clinton 50%, Trump 45%, Other 5%.

Who will help those senators most at risk during the Trumpocalype? George W. Bush

Former President George W. Bush is diving back into politics in an effort to try to save his party's most vulnerable senators, including those whose campaigns have become more challenging with Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee, NBC News has confirmed.

"President Bush believes that it's critical to keep the Senate in Republican hands. He is actively helping some senators in tight races who are strong leaders and share timeless conservative values," Bush spokesman Freddy Ford told NBC News.
...
In recent weeks, Bush has headlined fundraisers for two Republican senators and is committed to helping three more. He has already headlined events for Senators John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. He is committed to headlining events for Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

Bush's office confirms that at the event for McCain, the former president stressed the importance of preserving the Republican-held Senate as a "check and balance" on the White House - a check Bush believes would be needed whether the next president is Trump or Hillary Clinton.

tgb wrote:

YellowKing wrote:
I get it - I hate the knee-jerk cries of racism against the Republican policy, because clearly not all Republicans are racist and to paint people with that broad a brush seems akin to what you're accusing them of.

I know that there's not a whole lot of love around these parts for Bill Maher (other than one or two of us), but this has a ring of truth to it.

Nonsense, a particular brand of racists with an oversized influential voting block that dominates the current media, probably votes republican. Racists come in all shades and types and voting blocks.


Just spend more time with people of color if you want to see non republican racism. Or Gentrifying hipsters. Haven't Jewish people generally been a democratic voting bloc?

Avenue Q was right.

IMHO.

Wonkette has a series of "Truck Fump" merchandise

Stooping to the level of Trump supporters is not where I want to see things going.

hepcat wrote:Stooping to the level of Trump supporters is not where I want to see things going.

If it will sell, someone will make it.

Release the measurements!

Note: this was an actual ad aired on TV (in the DC area) by an actual PAC.

Oh my god, you're not joking.

"Though most of our donations are small, they are still significantly larger than Mr. Trump's hands," the group's spokeswoman Katie Nguyen told ABC News.

LOL that's brilliant. Any other politician would just ignore it but you just know Donald Trump can't let that pass. They are trolling him.

And we're, like, 50% sure John Oliver isn't behind this, right?