Octopus Overlords

In a statement "on dishonest media" released the same day by the Trump campaign, spokesman Jason Miller claimed that Trump was actually referring to the "amazing spirit" and "unification" of gun owners.

Riiiiight.

Trump also argued that he is being held to a different standard than Clinton, saying that "it would be a whole different ball game" if he used the same excuses she did.

"She said the other day, she short-circuited," he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. "Could you imagine if I said that I short-circuited? They would be calling for my execution. Electric chair, they'd bring back the electric chair."

So he said "I can't get away with saying anything" just moments before suggesting that his opponent might need to be assassinated?

A wink and nod to armed insurrection against an elected government is totally Presidential.

malchior wrote:A wink and nod to armed insurrection against an elected government is totally Presidential.

talk about a persecution complex as well. Who're "they" that are going to bring the electric chair if he said he short-circuited? Them. Those people.

He's right that he's being held to a different standard than Hillary. He has managed to lower the bar so far that only by calling for assassination and/or armed insurrection now can he grab all the headlines he wants.

The wall was yesterday's news. Can't talk about the wall, no one is going to talk about me.

I just wanted to say that for whatever reason, whenever I think about Drumpf and what he says, there is a large slice of my brain that thinks about it in terms of a practical joke that has gone too far. That he never wanted to be president and he's still trying to get out of it without being too obvious about it or simply quiting. So every time he says some stupid shit I'm like "is that enough to do it?".

Isgrimnur wrote:

In a statement "on dishonest media" released the same day by the Trump campaign, spokesman Jason Miller claimed that Trump was actually referring to the "amazing spirit" and "unification" of gun owners.

Riiiiight.

Someone should explain to him and possibly Drumpf that "amazing spirit" and "unification" wouldn't be enough to stop the court nominations, so what the hell is he talking about?

He either thinks "spirit" can stop it, in which case he's dumber than a bag of hammers, or he's implying that the use of firearms might be necessary to stop it, which of course is what he meant.

I guess what I'm saying is that the spin makes no sense in the context in which Drumpf spoke. It's either a call to violence or gibberish. Which was it, Drumpf campaign? You're going with gibberish?

GreenGoo wrote:I just wanted to say that for whatever reason, whenever I think about Drumpf and what he says, there is a large slice of my brain that thinks about it in terms of a practical joke that has gone too far. That he never wanted to be president and he's still trying to get out of it without going too far. So every time he says some stupid shit I'm like "is that enough to do it?".

Nah. He wants it, but he wants it his way. At this point I think "victory" for Trump means beating both Clinton *and* the GOP. If he wins without the party's help, he's the king and he owes nothing to anyone.

When has Trump ever been a team player? He screws over his partners as readily as his rivals.

Debates:

Donald Trump wants to debate Hillary Clinton “very badly,” but the Republican presidential nominee on Tuesday said he has “to see the conditions” before fully committing to it.
...
In a telephone interview with Time published Tuesday, Trump seemingly committed to participating in three debates but added a caveat.

“I will absolutely do three debates,” Trump said. “I want to debate very badly. But I have to see the conditions.”

The real estate mogul also suggested he would try to cut a deal with the commission. During the Republican primary, Trump criticized a marathon CNN debate that lasted more than three hours and took credit for the following debate, which was hosted by CNBC, being limited to just two hours. PolitiFact, however, rated Trump’s assertion that he renegotiated a three-hour debate down to two hours “Mostly False.”
...
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said the former secretary of state will accept the commission’s invitation to debate and looks forward to participating. But he also took a dig at Trump.

“It is concerning that the Trump campaign is already engaged in shenanigans around these debates. It is not clear if he is trying to avoid debates, or merely toying with the press to create more drama,” he said. “Either way, our campaign is not interested in playing along with a debate about debates or bargaining around them. The only issue now is whether Donald Trump is going to show up to debate at the date, times, places and formats set by the commission last year through a bipartisan process. We will accept the commission’s invitation and expect Donald Trump to do the same.”

The "they're coming to get your guns" thing just irritates me to no end. Clinton even got up and specifically said "I'm not trying to take your guns." And yet this line still gets trotted out.

News flash. If the government wanted to take your guns, they could roll up in your neighborhood with a tank and more firepower than you've ever seen in your life, knock down your door, and take your fucking guns. I can't believe people buy into that nonsense.

Hell, let them try to take them! That's what you've been waiting for, isn't it? A chance to shoot somebody?

Donald Trump wrote:“I want to debate very badly."

Own it, Donald!

Holman wrote:

Donald Trump wrote:“I want to debate very badly."

Own it, Donald!

As long as you don't force me not to debate*. I will debate. --The Donald

*Reasons to not debate: unfairness, busy watching videos of cash being offloaded for ransom payment, phase of moon not right, or location has fall-like weather.

Ladies and gentleman, the Republican candidate for POTUS speaks,

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes,
OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart
—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if,
like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the
smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a
conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's
why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went
there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my
like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but
you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would
have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear
is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the
power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of
what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?),
but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it
used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I
would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because,
you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter
right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about
another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Yeah, so there! Erm, what did I just read and was all of that really one sentence?

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- Trump is related to JSHAW???

You know, if you're going to go all stream of consciousness, you should probably make sure there is something in it first.

Now somebody tell me his uncle is not a blood relative so my day is complete.

Enough wrote:Ladies and gentleman, the Republican candidate for POTUS speaks,

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes,
OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart
—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if,
like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the
smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a
conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's
why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went
there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my
like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but
you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would
have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear
is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the
power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of
what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?),
but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it
used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I
would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because,
you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter
right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about
another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Yeah, so there! Erm, what did I just read and was all of that really one sentence?

It's not even that.

GreenGoo wrote:You know, if you're going to go all stream of consciousness, you should probably make sure there is something in it first.

Now somebody tell me his uncle is not a blood relative so my day is complete.

His father's brother. Sorry.

GreenGoo wrote:
He's had success in golf courses, although I didn't find enough details to know how successful. He also has a building in Chicago that is supposed to have gone well.

The building itself is okay, but ask any Chicagoan about the big dumb sign he put on it and you'll likely get a less favorable review.
I don't really know if it's been a financial success or not.

Enough wrote:Yeah, so there! Erm, what did I just read and was all of that really one sentence?

Jesus Christ that's just fucking word-vomit. He makes George W Bush look like Martin Luther King Jr.

I literally know preschoolers that are more articulate than this man. This is not hyperbole.

HOW DOES HE HAVE SUPPORTERS?

Spent a good portion of my weekend driving through Pennsyltucky and there were more Trump signs on lawns than I thought possible.

NM: covered on the last page.

BooTx wrote:word-vomit

I have to borrow this. Hope you don't mind. That is the most apt description that I've seen so far.

Smoove_B wrote:Spent a good portion of my weekend driving through Pennsyltucky and there were more Trump signs on lawns than I thought possible.

NM: covered on the last page.

Yup. The populations of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh balance out the interior of the state. Elections are decided by the tilt of the Philadelphia suburbs.

That's why I'm volunteering for voter registration and GOTV around Philly this year.

At least he knows how to pronounce nuclear. Maybe he has a good brain after all.

Smoove_B wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa -- Trump is related to JSHAW???

Defiant wrote:Seems like the Secret Service may want to talk with Mr Trump.

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

This election manages to get more and more crazy.

I'd be willing to bet he said it that way intentionally knowing it would be misconstrued so he could get more publicity and blame the media. I think it's back-firing. I don't think he's learned yet that he can't say anything and get away with now that the entire country is paying attention.

Defiant wrote:Seems like the Secret Service may want to talk with Mr Trump.

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

Defiant wrote:

Heh, I guess they're tired of people reporting him to them (as if they weren't right there when he said it).

Archinerd wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
He's had success in golf courses, although I didn't find enough details to know how successful. He also has a building in Chicago that is supposed to have gone well.

The building itself is okay, but ask any Chicagoan about the big dumb sign he put on it and you'll likely get a less favorable review.
I don't really know if it's been a financial success or not.

It's heartwarming to hear that Chicago has such tiny problems to be concerned with, everything else there must be all hunky-dory.

My mom and I about got into it over Trump this afternoon, which is crazy since we hardly ever talk politics and I can't ever remember arguing with her about them. But her arguments were so asinine I just couldn't bite my tongue.

First she tells me she talked to a "military guy" and he said that the military is 100% behind Trump. Now I happen to know the guy she asked, and he is an extreme right-winger so the idea he's voting for Trump is no shock whatsoever. I replied that was interesting, since I had talked to my buddy who is a Navy officer who had absolutely zero intent on voting for Trump. She dismissed this as "Well his parents are liberals so you can't listen to him." (I guess the point being if you are a known registered Republican right-winger, your opinion is valid, but if your parents are liberal, your opinion is invalid.)

Then she did the whole "think of your kids" argument. To which I again replied that I WAS thinking of my kids, and that's why I wasn't voting for a bullying hothead with no political experience. She said, "Well he can't just start wars." I was like ummmmm yes he can. "No he can't. Presidents can't just bomb people without approval from the Supreme Court. Hillary is going to appoint five justices, and then you talk about war...." I couldn't even process this so I just moved on.

Then she goes, "You are going to vote for a KNOWN LIAR?" And I was like "Trump lies every time he opens his mouth, are you kidding me right now?" She dismissed this and brought up the email servers again.

Then the topper of the entire argument. She goes, "I watched her speech, and that liar stood up there and said she was going to give out FREE EDUCATION. FREE COLLEGE? Can you believe that garbage?" And I was like, "What's wrong with free college? I'd love for the government to pay for my two kids to go to college." To which she replied "TO MEXICANS!!!" Another path I didn't have the strength to go down.

So finally she says, "This world is going to absolute hell, the country is falling apart!" And I was like, "Really? I don't think it's that bad. But you do what you gotta do." So she replied, "All I'm saying is you need to do some research before you vote for Hillary." I had to bite my tongue that I had a feeling I'd probably done more research than her given that I actually read several different political websites a day from both sides of the aisle....and also knew how the Supreme Court worked...but I restrained myself. You know what her research was? That anti-Hillary propaganda movie my stepdad dragged her to see.

It's *extremely* irritating for someone that narrow-minded in their focus to accuse me of not thinking clearly. I've been a conservative, a Republican, IN WRITING, for 23 years. It's not like I came to these conclusions lightly and without any thought put into it whatsoever. Unbelievable.

em2nought wrote:

Archinerd wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
He's had success in golf courses, although I didn't find enough details to know how successful. He also has a building in Chicago that is supposed to have gone well.

The building itself is okay, but ask any Chicagoan about the big dumb sign he put on it and you'll likely get a less favorable review.
I don't really know if it's been a financial success or not.

It's heartwarming to hear that Chicago has such tiny problems to be concerned with, everything else there must be all hunky-dory.

Are you really an ass or do you just play one on OO?

TO MEXICANS has serious meme potential.

YellowKing wrote: So finally she says, "This world is going to absolute hell, the country is falling apart!" And I was like, "Really? I don't think it's that bad. But you do what you gotta do."

See, I was thinking on this and honestly, this might be one of the most boring times for an election cycle ever.

As far as unique/turning points in time go, this is a non-starter. Not only is the country NOT falling apart, it's not involved in pretty much anything as far as exciting (read: of a serious nature) geopolitical events goes. This is like the least important election ever, so both sides had to throw up their worst possible candidates to make things tense and drama worthy.

What is it that your mother thinks is turning the country to hell? Immigrants? Healthcare? Economy? Where is the fire that she is so upset about?

"The feel-good movie of the year." - Yellowking's Mom

Can someone explain to me why "goes" and "out" are in red in that title? What's the thinking behind that?

GreenGoo wrote:Can someone explain to me why "goes" and "out" are in red in that title? What's the thinking behind that?

In addition to being drug dealers and rapists, they're all a bunch of Commies too.

Where are the board idiots justifying trump?

YellowKing wrote:
It's *extremely* irritating for someone that narrow-minded in their focus to accuse me of not thinking clearly. I've been a conservative, a Republican, IN WRITING, for 23 years. It's not like I came to these conclusions lightly and without any thought put into it whatsoever. Unbelievable.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." -Jonathan Swift

It's the same thing with my Dad and his extreme pro-Palestinian views. Not that it's crazy to be pro-palestinian in terms of the Israel - Palestine conflict, by any means, just that his particular views are insane. And it's all bombast and rhetoric, no real reasoning or logic. And like, I was a modern history major, I took a lot of courses in the middle east, on Islam, etc., and I keep regularly abreast of international political issues, and he just spouts this craziness which is so transparently wrong, but he's just so utterly convinced that he is 100% correct.

But for what it's worth, I tend to find when dealing with crazy people on politics the socratic method works best. Just calmly - what would you do about X? I'm curious how you would address Y flaw? Generally having them reason through things tends to be relatively more productive than pointing out the reasons why they are wrong.

GreenGoo wrote:What is it that your mother thinks is turning the country to hell? Immigrants? Healthcare? Economy? Where is the fire that she is so upset about?

Nothing real, just fantasy. That Christianity is under attack, ISIS is coming to kill everyone, immigrants are taking our jobs, crime rates are skyrocketing, etc. Combine that with her religion fueling intolerance of homosexuality and Muslims and you've got the perfect firestorm of fear and paranoia.

I tried to explain that love of Hillary is not driving my vote, because Lord knows that's not the case. But I have not yet heard a single convincing argument that voting for her would be more disastrous than voting for Trump. "Lying about an email server" doesn't rank super high on my list of things I give a fiddly fuck about when it comes to choosing a President - not when the other guy is now apparently inciting assassinations of his rival.

Speaking of which, I thought it was hilarious that the news was recently featuring this "new Trump" that is back on message - a direct result of pressure from the Republican party. And the guy can't even get through one political rally without his mouth getting him in hot water again. Can you imagine four years of him making those kinds of gaffes on a weekly basis?

Weekly? You're awfully optimistic.