Octopus Overlords

YellowKing wrote:
True, but it's making a difference among independents/undecideds/NeverTrumpers. Hillary has extended her lead over Trump steadily since the convention, far more than a mere convention bounce could account for.

Skinypupy wrote:In the latest news from the FW:FW:FW:FW: files, I had this one sent over my a few "concerned" relatives this morning. Khzir Kahn is apparently a "Sharia supremacist", and the DNC should be ashamed of ever putting him on stage. (beware, Breitbart link)

I'm fairly certain we've reached maximum derp here, people.

YellowKing wrote:I had one of those Facebook "I'm not political, but I'm getting ready to be political because somebody posted this article that I never bothered to fact check and it convinced me that I must vote Trump" moments the other day.

It was a rundown of all the voter fraud that supposedly occurred in 2012 - crazy stats like "Obama won this county with 154% of registered voters" etc. etc. It looked fishy so I pulled up Snopes and of course they debunked every "fact" on there.

It's irritating how many people will take the first thing they read on the internet, take it as the gospel truth, then decide which way they're going to vote based on it. I mean come on people - it takes less than thirty seconds to fact check something like that.

Xmann wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I had one of those Facebook "I'm not political, but I'm getting ready to be political because somebody posted this article that I never bothered to fact check and it convinced me that I must vote Trump" moments the other day.

It was a rundown of all the voter fraud that supposedly occurred in 2012 - crazy stats like "Obama won this county with 154% of registered voters" etc. etc. It looked fishy so I pulled up Snopes and of course they debunked every "fact" on there.

It's irritating how many people will take the first thing they read on the internet, take it as the gospel truth, then decide which way they're going to vote based on it. I mean come on people - it takes less than thirty seconds to fact check something like that.

Yep, this is what my father in law is doing. He's been posting articles about how the voting system is fraudulent and how it is already rigged to work against Trump.

Most of the stuff he posts related to Trump is purely made up or so deceptive it's a lie. I'm pretty sure all he does is read Pro Trump websites and shares articles he doesn't take 5 minutes to make sure are accurate.

gilraen wrote:There have been fewer than 100 convictions for fraudulent voting in the past 15 years or so - that's counting EVERY federal, state and local election. Only a handful of these were people voting twice; some were felons voting in a state that doesn't allow voters with felony records. Most of these would not have been prevented by any voter ID law, and none were significant enough to change the result of any given election.

Alefroth wrote:I wonder if Trump even knows about the electoral college.

Default wrote:

Alefroth wrote:I wonder if Trump even knows about the electoral college.

Trump U was much better. It was more awesome than some college no one has ever heard of.

Biyobi wrote:

Default wrote:

Alefroth wrote:I wonder if Trump even knows about the electoral college.

Trump U was much better. It was more awesome than some college no one has ever heard of.

If the electoral college is so great, how come he's never met anyone that's graduated from there?

YellowKing wrote:I had one of those Facebook "I'm not political, but I'm getting ready to be political because somebody posted this article that I never bothered to fact check and it convinced me that I must vote Drumpf" moments the other day.

It was a rundown of all the voter fraud that supposedly occurred in 2012 - crazy stats like "Obama won this county with 154% of registered voters" etc. etc. It looked fishy so I pulled up Snopes and of course they debunked every "fact" on there.

It's irritating how many people will take the first thing they read on the internet, take it as the gospel truth, then decide which way they're going to vote based on it. I mean come on people - it takes less than thirty seconds to fact check something like that.

Rip wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzC-l7tovFk

Kurth wrote:

Xmann wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I had one of those Facebook "I'm not political, but I'm getting ready to be political because somebody posted this article that I never bothered to fact check and it convinced me that I must vote Trump" moments the other day.

It was a rundown of all the voter fraud that supposedly occurred in 2012 - crazy stats like "Obama won this county with 154% of registered voters" etc. etc. It looked fishy so I pulled up Snopes and of course they debunked every "fact" on there.

It's irritating how many people will take the first thing they read on the internet, take it as the gospel truth, then decide which way they're going to vote based on it. I mean come on people - it takes less than thirty seconds to fact check something like that.

Yep, this is what my father in law is doing. He's been posting articles about how the voting system is fraudulent and how it is already rigged to work against Trump.

Most of the stuff he posts related to Trump is purely made up or so deceptive it's a lie. I'm pretty sure all he does is read Pro Trump websites and shares articles he doesn't take 5 minutes to make sure are accurate.

I've got that exact same model of father-in-law, except mine is Israel focused rather than Trump focused. Such a smart guy, too, on just about everything else. The best is when he forwards me some new "article" about how Palestinians are boiling Israeli settlers alive or some such, and it turns out it's sourced from some white supremacist site. Yet, when I point it out, he hardly cares.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Sunday suggested he’s still not likely to vote for Donald Trump in November and warned that the GOP nominee would find it “really, really difficult” to win the critical Buckeye State.

Kasich, who has refused to endorse Trump and didn’t attend the Republican National Convention last month even though his state hosted it, said he can’t support any candidate that “operates the dark side of the street.”
...
“There will be sections he will win because people are angry, frustrated and haven't heard any answers,” he said. “But I still think it's difficult if you are dividing to be able to win Ohio. I think it's really, really difficult.”

Most election models suggest that there’s no way Trump can win the election without winning Ohio.

Kasich, however, added he wasn’t likely to vote for Hillary Clinton either, saying that a Clinton White House would result in “total gridlock.”

A number of high-profile Republicans have said in recent days that they will vote for Clinton over Trump, including Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) and GOP foreign policy expert Richard Armitage.

Donald Trump is focusing his economic message on boosting jobs and making America more competitive globally by cutting business taxes, reducing regulations and increasing energy production.

With a speech Monday to the Detroit Economic Club, the Republican presidential nominee seeks to reset his campaign and delve into a subject — the economy — that is seen as one of his strengths. It also is aimed at showing that he is a serious candidate despite a disastrous stretch that has prompted criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.
...
When Trump speaks in Detroit, he is expected to reiterate his plan for reducing income taxes, as well as lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent from the current 35 percent in an effort to spur new investment. He is also calling for eliminating the estate tax and a temporary moratorium on new regulations.
...
This won’t be the first time Trump lays out his economic vision. He first unveiled his tax plan last fall, framing it as a boon to the middle class. “It’s going to cost me a fortune,” the billionaire businessman told reporters as he vowed to lower taxes across the board without exploding the deficit.

But a host of independent groups crunching the numbers soon concluded otherwise. The plan, they said, dramatically favored the wealthy over the middle class and would increase the debt by as much as $10 trillion over the next decade.

El Guapo wrote:

Kurth wrote:

Xmann wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I had one of those Facebook "I'm not political, but I'm getting ready to be political because somebody posted this article that I never bothered to fact check and it convinced me that I must vote Trump" moments the other day.

It was a rundown of all the voter fraud that supposedly occurred in 2012 - crazy stats like "Obama won this county with 154% of registered voters" etc. etc. It looked fishy so I pulled up Snopes and of course they debunked every "fact" on there.

It's irritating how many people will take the first thing they read on the internet, take it as the gospel truth, then decide which way they're going to vote based on it. I mean come on people - it takes less than thirty seconds to fact check something like that.

Yep, this is what my father in law is doing. He's been posting articles about how the voting system is fraudulent and how it is already rigged to work against Trump.

Most of the stuff he posts related to Trump is purely made up or so deceptive it's a lie. I'm pretty sure all he does is read Pro Trump websites and shares articles he doesn't take 5 minutes to make sure are accurate.

I've got that exact same model of father-in-law, except mine is Israel focused rather than Trump focused. Such a smart guy, too, on just about everything else. The best is when he forwards me some new "article" about how Palestinians are boiling Israeli settlers alive or some such, and it turns out it's sourced from some white supremacist site. Yet, when I point it out, he hardly cares.

I have the same father, except on the pro-Palestinian side. We should get them together for lunch sometime.

Donald Trump’s plan to make America great again favors pin-striped suits and Hermès ties over blue collars. The Republican presidential nominee laid out his plan to boost U.S. growth on Monday, calling for corporate tax cuts and a halt to new financial regulation. Billionaire investors and donors to the Trump campaign who comprise his newly announced economic team helped craft the proposal.

The artifice was perpetuated by Trump’s decision to unveil his latest ideas in Detroit, a Rust Belt symbol of American labor only two years out of bankruptcy. And yet a blanket moratorium on any new federal rules would primarily benefit big businesses and Wall Street. Trump cited manufacturing industry research that “overregulation” costs the economy up to $2 trillion a year. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, bank lobbyists and others have sued President Barack Obama’s administration dozens of times over a variety of restrictions. Trump also wants to roll back environmental protections, including ones that reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.

Much of Trump’s economic scheme seems to rely on trickle-down theories that have been debunked. As the ranks of the rich expanded under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the middle class shrank. The International Monetary Fund said in a 2015 report that if the share of income among the top 20 percent increases, GDP growth actually declines because the benefits don’t reach the lower classes.

It is telling that most of Trump’s advisers are wealthy businessmen. The economic team he announced last week includes hedge-fund boss John Paulson, who made his fortune betting against the U.S. housing market just before the 2008 financial crisis. Another is Cerberus Capital founder Stephen Feinberg, who along with his wife gave the Trump Victory fundraising group nearly $680,000.

Trump made some effort to help lower-income individuals, including by reducing their taxes. He also has backpedaled on his original idea of cutting the rate on top earners to 25 percent and instead is now on the same page as House Speaker Paul Ryan at 33 percent. Even when Trump ostensibly aims for the poor, however, he helps the rich. A proposal to make childcare expenses tax-deductible, for example, seems to overlook that nearly half of American households already pay no federal income tax, and would therefore benefit those making more.

For a candidate supposedly championing the working class, the rich New York real-estate developer sure has a soft spot for the 1 percent.

YellowKing wrote:My brother's girlfriend and her friends have been snapping up Trump rally tickets right and left trying to leave as many seats empty as possible.

hepcat wrote: A clothing and news site?

Rip wrote:Perhaps they should pay people to attend the way they pay them to protest Trump events. That sure seems to draw some crowds.

Jaymann wrote:

Rip wrote:Perhaps they should pay people to attend the way they pay them to protest Trump events. That sure seems to draw some crowds.

They pay people to fight Fascism? Only in America!

Donald Trump was thundering about a minority group, linking its members to murderers and what he predicted would be an epic crime wave in America. His opponents raged in response—some slamming him as a racist—but Trump dismissed them as blind, ignorant of the real world.

No, this is not a scene from a recent rally in which the Republican nominee for president stoked fears of violence from immigrants or Muslims. The year was 1993, and his target was Native Americans, particularly those running casinos who, Trump was telling a congressional hearing, were sucking up to criminals.

His words were, as is so often the case, incendiary. Lawmakers, latching onto his claim to know more than law enforcement about ongoing criminal activity at Indian casinos, challenged Trump to bring his information to the FBI. One attacked Trump’s argument as the most “irresponsible testimony” he had ever heard. Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker Jr., whom Trump had praised in his testimony, responded by calling him a “dirtbag” and a bigot; Trump immediately changed his mind about the governor, proclaiming Weicker to be a “fat slob who couldn't get elected dog catcher in Connecticut.”

And while Trump is quick to boast that his purported billions prove his business acumen, his net worth is almost unknowable given the loose standards and numerous outright misrepresentations he has made over the years. In that 2007 deposition, Trump said he based estimates of his net worth at times on “psychology” and “my own feelings.” But those feelings are often wrong—in 2004, he presented unaudited financials to Deutsche Bank while seeking a loan, claiming he was worth $3.5 billion. The bank concluded Trump was, to say the least, puffing; it put his net worth at $788 million, records show. (Trump personally guaranteed $40 million of the loan to his company, so Deutsche coughed up the money. He later defaulted on that commitment.)

"If she gets to pick her judges," Trump said, "nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."