Octopus Overlords

How stupid do you have to be to not shell out the 3k or whatever they were promised. Being sued by a freedom loving, blonde curled little girl singing group while running for president? How could anyone survive those optics? It would be the best 3k spent on PR yet.

Worse, this group or at least their Dad was a Drumpf supporter! It's not like Drumpf got swiftboated out of the blue. He had MONTHS to make this right. Instead he's got headlines about being sued by little girls.

If this doesn't illustrate just how incompetently run his campaign is, I don't know what would. He's worth a zillion billion bucks. He said so himself. 3k (or 5k or whatever it is) is what he tips the valet at Christmas.

I'm with El Guapo. The moment I hear how this is a left wing conspiracy or media bias to keep Drumpf out of the White House, I'm gonna start strangling cats. Clearly there is no god.

GreenGoo wrote:How stupid do you have to be to not shell out the 3k or whatever they were promised. Being sued by a freedom loving, blonde curled little girl singing group while running for president? How could anyone survive those optics? It would be the best 3k spent on PR yet.

Worse, this group or at least their Dad was a Drumpf supporter! It's not like Drumpf got swiftboated out of the blue. He had MONTHS to make this right. Instead he's got headlines about being sued by little girls.

If this doesn't illustrate just how incompetently run his campaign is, I don't know what would. He's worth a zillion billion bucks. He said so himself. 3k (or 5k or whatever it is) is what he tips the valet at Christmas.

I'm with El Guapo. The moment I hear how this is a left wing conspiracy or media bias to keep Drumpf out of the White House, I'm gonna start strangling cats. Clearly there is no god.

I did like how the guy was careful to note that he didn't trump up (no pun intended) fake evidence like in frivolous lawsuits. As a Trump supporter he's presumably read all about how the legal system is inundated with junk lawsuits from people who just want a hand out, so he needs to make clear that *his* lawsuit, unlike all the others, is legit.

Also, Trump to ask generals who know less than him about ISIS to devise a plan to defeat ISIS, that he already developed last year but won't tell anyone about.

Unbelievably, this is a totally accurate summary of the situation.

hepcat wrote:They should contract out to Kim Jong-un. At least he doesn't stiff people. You might get shot with a howitzer for wearing blue on a Tuesday, but the check will clear.

Tell that to Volvo.

GreenGoo wrote:How stupid do you have to be to not shell out the 3k or whatever they were promised. Being sued by a freedom loving, blonde curled little girl singing group while running for president? How could anyone survive those optics? It would be the best 3k spent on PR yet.

Worse, this group or at least their Dad was a Drumpf supporter! It's not like Drumpf got swiftboated out of the blue. He had MONTHS to make this right. Instead he's got headlines about being sued by little girls.

If this doesn't illustrate just how incompetently run his campaign is, I don't know what would. He's worth a zillion billion bucks. He said so himself. 3k (or 5k or whatever it is) is what he tips the valet at Christmas.

I'm with El Guapo. The moment I hear how this is a left wing conspiracy or media bias to keep Drumpf out of the White House, I'm gonna start strangling cats. Clearly there is no god.

Benghazi!!!!
Private email server!!!

Isgrimnur wrote:

hepcat wrote:They should contract out to Kim Jong-un. At least he doesn't stiff people. You might get shot with a howitzer for wearing blue on a Tuesday, but the check will clear.

Tell that to Volvo.

I absolutely love reading stories about that weird little regime. I often wonder how much of it is just made up...but then I see things like The Vice Guide to North Korea and I realize it's all true, most likely.

I think it's unfortunate that Hillary-hate has led so many conservatives to completely abandon their values. The problem with voting *against* issues rather than for them is that you may find yourself voting *for* things you would have never otherwise dreamed of supporting.

My stepdad slammed Trump on numerous occasions during the run-up to the primaries. He talked about his inexperience, his brashness, his flip-flopping. And now he supports him whole-heartedly.

Letting your values be taken hostage out of anger and opposition, to me, is weak. Which is why it angers me when my parents claim that *I'm* the one that abandoned my values. From where I'm sitting, I'm the only person in my family who didn't.

YellowKing wrote:I think it's unfortunate that Hillary-hate has led so many conservatives to completely abandon their values. The problem with voting *against* issues rather than for them is that you may find yourself voting *for* things you would have never otherwise dreamed of supporting.

My stepdad slammed Trump on numerous occasions during the run-up to the primaries. He talked about his inexperience, his brashness, his flip-flopping. And now he supports him whole-heartedly.

Letting your values be taken hostage out of anger and opposition, to me, is weak. Which is why it angers me when my parents claim that *I'm* the one that abandoned my values. From where I'm sitting, I'm the only person in my family who didn't.

I will say, I can understand in the reverse situation, where like the Republican nominee were (say) Ted Cruz, and the democratic nominee was a reincarnated Hugo Chavez, giving some consideration to voting for the ideologically closer lunatic and just praying that he gets restrained from the worst excesses by Congress / the courts / advisors.

What I can't wrap my head around is: (a) full throated support; or (b) that such lunatic supporters could come anywhere close to an electoral majority.

YellowKing wrote:I think it's unfortunate that Hillary-hate has led so many conservatives to completely abandon their values. The problem with voting *against* issues rather than for them is that you may find yourself voting *for* things you would have never otherwise dreamed of supporting.

My stepdad slammed Trump on numerous occasions during the run-up to the primaries. He talked about his inexperience, his brashness, his flip-flopping. And now he supports him whole-heartedly.

Letting your values be taken hostage out of anger and opposition, to me, is weak. Which is why it angers me when my parents claim that *I'm* the one that abandoned my values. From where I'm sitting, I'm the only person in my family who didn't.

If you could have seen the look on my dad's face when I told him over the weekend I was voting for Gary Johnson and not Trump. Oy!

Politico

Vowing that his foreign policy would "emphasize diplomacy, not destruction," Donald Trump went on the offensive Wednesday against Hillary Clinton, accusing the Democratic nominee of being "trigger-happy" and "very unstable."

Trump declared that Clinton's legacy in Iraq, Libya and Syria "has produced only turmoil and suffering and death" during his speech to the Union League of Philadelphia, hours before he is set to appear after the former secretary of state at the Commander in Chief Forum in New York City.
...
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who on Tuesday Trump suggested would rather have Clinton as president, "has absolutely no respect for" her, the Republican nominee declared.

This from the man that has to ask why we can't use nukes and doesn't know what the prongs of the nuclear triad are.

I'll give Trump credit - he's using the old lawyer trick of taking every argument that could be used against him and flipping it towards his opponent.

I think Hillary's strategy of quietly letting Trump strangle himself served her well up to a point, but now that the race is tightening she now needs to go on the offensive. It's clear that Trump has reached a ceiling on how much he can hurt himself.

We are 2.5 weeks out from the first debate.

El Guapo wrote: I did like how the guy was careful to note that he didn't trump up (no pun intended) fake evidence like in frivolous lawsuits. As a Trump supporter he's presumably read all about how the legal system is inundated with junk lawsuits from people who just want a hand out, so he needs to make clear that *his* lawsuit, unlike all the others, is legit.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I've read a few articles on this as it developed over the last few weeks and months and it sounds totally legit. He wants what was promised to them. Obviously the kids don't care about the money (at least not much, they're kind of young to covet cash) so it's the Dad, and he could just be after the money, but it didn't come across that way to me.

YellowKing wrote:I'll give Trump credit - he's using the old lawyer trick of taking every argument that could be used against him and flipping it towards his opponent.

Next up: Trump explains how being a woman in today's workforce has shaped his...er....her views on labor.

I'm starting to think if people would stop criticizing Drumpf, he'd have trouble figuring out what to accuse Clinton of next.

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote: I did like how the guy was careful to note that he didn't trump up (no pun intended) fake evidence like in frivolous lawsuits. As a Trump supporter he's presumably read all about how the legal system is inundated with junk lawsuits from people who just want a hand out, so he needs to make clear that *his* lawsuit, unlike all the others, is legit.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I've read a few articles on this as it developed over the last few weeks and months and it sounds totally legit. He wants what was promised to them. Obviously the kids don't care about the money (at least not much, they're kind of young to covet cash) so it's the Dad, and he could just be after the money, but it didn't come across that way to me.

Oh, I'm not questioning his particular claim - it seems plausible enough (though the verbal contract complicates things), and I haven't read enough to really assess the merits. I'm talking about how as a (presumably former) Trump supporter he comes from a part of the political spectrum that is inclined to believe that there are huge numbers of junk lawsuits out there that are made up to try to squeeze cash out of job creators (hence a need for tort reform to crack down on 'frivolous lawsuits').

That belief is coming into tension with his current need to file a lawsuit to recover money owed to him. So he's stressing that of course *his* lawsuit is the meritorious one, even though there are so many frivolous suits out there.

Basically, I would suggest to the guy that there are many people who find themselves in situations where they are screwed out of money, and that this ought to inform his broader assessment of "frivolous lawsuits" / tort reform matters.

Isgrimnur wrote:Politico

Vowing that his foreign policy would "emphasize diplomacy, not destruction," Donald Trump went on the offensive Wednesday against Hillary Clinton, accusing the Democratic nominee of being "trigger-happy" and "very unstable."

Trump declared that Clinton's legacy in Iraq, Libya and Syria "has produced only turmoil and suffering and death" during his speech to the Union League of Philadelphia, hours before he is set to appear after the former secretary of state at the Commander in Chief Forum in New York City.
...
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who on Tuesday Trump suggested would rather have Clinton as president, "has absolutely no respect for" her, the Republican nominee declared.

This from the man that has to ask why we can't use nukes and doesn't know what the prongs of the nuclear triad are.

Versus a woman that doesn't remember half the things that she did while Sec of State just a few years ago. If people would have just listened to me at the start we could be getting Rand Paul instead.

Nuclear war vs. absentmindedness....Nuclear war vs. absentmindedness ....Nuclear war vs. absentmi....you know, that's a tough call.

Rip wrote: If people would have just listened to me at the start we could be getting Rand Paul instead.

We did listen to you. That's why we're happy we're NOT getting Rand Paul.

El Guapo wrote: I'm talking about how as a (presumably former) Trump supporter he comes from a part of the political spectrum that is inclined to believe that there are huge numbers of junk lawsuits out there that are made up to try to squeeze cash out of job creators (hence a need for tort reform to crack down on 'frivolous lawsuits')

No one knows more about frivolous lawsuits than Drumpf. Presumably his supporters understand this.

Rip wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Politico

Vowing that his foreign policy would "emphasize diplomacy, not destruction," Donald Trump went on the offensive Wednesday against Hillary Clinton, accusing the Democratic nominee of being "trigger-happy" and "very unstable."

Trump declared that Clinton's legacy in Iraq, Libya and Syria "has produced only turmoil and suffering and death" during his speech to the Union League of Philadelphia, hours before he is set to appear after the former secretary of state at the Commander in Chief Forum in New York City.
...
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who on Tuesday Trump suggested would rather have Clinton as president, "has absolutely no respect for" her, the Republican nominee declared.

This from the man that has to ask why we can't use nukes and doesn't know what the prongs of the nuclear triad are.

Versus a woman that doesn't remember half the things that she did while Sec of State just a few years ago.

So it's Clinton's plausible deniability vs Trump's plausible stupidity.

hepcat wrote:That's why we're happy we're NOT getting Rand Paul.

Because he's worse than Trump?

That's like a bizarre version of Sophie's Choice in which she's asked to choose between severe head trauma or a festering gunshot wound.

hepcat wrote:That's like a bizarre version of Sophie's Choice in which she's asked to choose between severe head trauma or a festering gunshot wound.

Violent imagery. Are you from Chicago?

Second complaint filed against the Trump Foundation for 501(c)(3) violations. It made a $25,000 campaign donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Blondi while her office was considering to investigate Trump University. That's a statutorily prohibited political activity and self-dealing with potential 200% penalties. Trump Foundation already voluntarily paid a $2,500 penalty earlier this year and Trump repaid the amount. Trump's not commenting because that's an admission of fault.

Everyone but Rip may remember the first violation was using the Trump Foundation for a campaign event during his debate stunt -- to raise money for veteran's organizations that weren't actually paid until the media figured it out.

Trump is a PROVEN and SELF-CONFESSED crook trying to hide behind suspicions and rumors about Hillary.

hepcat wrote:That's like a bizarre version of Sophie's Choice in which she's asked to choose between severe head trauma or a festering gunshot wound.

Even if you don't like Rand Paul, it's still more like severe head trauma vs. a broken ankle (or similar, less horrible injury).

Zarathud wrote:and Trump repaid the amount.

Also not legally (apparently). From what I read, he paid his foundation back. However, he should have requested that Bondi pay the foundation back. And then given her the money personally. I suspect that there is something beneficial, though, (for him) in how he handled it.

Isgrimnur wrote:We are 2.5 weeks out from the first debate.

It'll be interesting to watch the "Commander-in-Chief forum" tonight, though.

Moliere wrote:

hepcat wrote:That's like a bizarre version of Sophie's Choice in which she's asked to choose between severe head trauma or a festering gunshot wound.

Violent imagery. Are you from Chicago?

Well it's not really the same thing if the choices are cupcakes or cinnabons.

How about choosing between cancer and cancer? Better?

ImLawBoy wrote:

hepcat wrote:That's like a bizarre version of Sophie's Choice in which she's asked to choose between severe head trauma or a festering gunshot wound.

Even if you don't like Rand Paul, it's still more like severe head trauma vs. a broken ankle (or similar, less horrible injury).

Absolutely no doubt. I definitely don't agree with Rand about a lot of policy issues, but he is amazing compared to Drumpf.

I have trouble supporting Libertarian idealism as I think much of it is too steeped in unrealistic expectations of self governance.

TheMix wrote:

Zarathud wrote:and Trump repaid the amount.

Also not legally (apparently). From what I read, he paid his foundation back.

Trump repaid his Foundation before the IRS audited because it would otherwise (a) be legally obligated by the tax law to sue him (and the Florida Attorney General) and (b) immediately trigger a $50,000 tax penalty (200% of the amount involved).

The Trump Foundation is flat out violating textbook restrictions on private foundations and 501(c)(3)s to benefit Donald Trump. There's not even a discussion about whether it was legal.

This reckless behavior in disregard of the law comes from the candidate who called to "lock up" his political opponent over unproven allegations. It should be shocking, but it's standard operating procedure for Trump.

malchior wrote:The latest CNN poll has Drumpf up. We'll have to see if other polls follow or if they just done messed up. My take btw is that this poll is deeply misleading. It reflects likely voters rather than registered voters used in other polls but they over represent older folks by a decent margin. *Even when you consider older folks tend to vote more*. There are practically no millennials represented in the poll (and some will inevitably vote) and GenX as nebulous as it is is under counted too.

Over represent by a decent margin means totally excluding anyone 18-34 (see page 22)!

Bad CNN, bad.

How about we look for candidates who have an interest in actually being a working President who leads the Executive Branch instead of delegating, ignoring or downsizing it to pursue their own aggrandizement?

Interesting rundown of the battleground states by The Hill. I only included the ones where ad spending and/or field office numbers were listed. Clearly if the election ultimately comes down to campaign fundamentals, Hillary should walk away with this one.

Ohio

Ad spending: Hillary $22 million, Trump $2 million
Field offices: Hillary 36, Trump 16

Florida

Ad spending: Hillary 34 million, Trump No Data
Field offices: Hillary 34, Trump 1

North Carolina

Ad spending: Hillary 16 million, Trump 1 million
Field offices: Hillary 30, Trump 0

Pennsylvania

Ad spending: Hillary 18 million, Trump 1 million

Michigan

Field offices: Hillary 23, Trump 0

Nevada

Field offices: Hillary 6, Trump 6

New Hampshire

Ad spending: Hillary 7 million, Trump 0
Field offices: Hillary 17, Trump 1

gilraen wrote: It'll be interesting to watch the "Commander-in-Chief forum" tonight, though.

I'm sure it'll be discussed pretty thoroughly tomorrow.

The initial takeaway is that Trump said a bunch of just flat-out weird things. He insisted (despite all evidence) that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. He claims that Obama/Clinton have ruined the military, so he's going to have to replace the current generals with better ones. He went off yet again on how great he thinks Putin is, calling him a "strong leader" as if Russian leadership has anything to do with what we expect or want in a Western democracy. As always, when asked for specifics he dodged into bluster and nonsense.

YellowKing wrote:Interesting rundown of the battleground states by The Hill. I only included the ones where ad spending and/or field office numbers were listed. Clearly if the election ultimately comes down to campaign fundamentals, Hillary should walk away with this one.

Ohio

Ad spending: Hillary $22 million, Trump $2 million
Field offices: Hillary 36, Trump 16

Florida

Ad spending: Hillary 34 million, Trump No Data
Field offices: Hillary 34, Trump 1

North Carolina

Ad spending: Hillary 16 million, Trump 1 million
Field offices: Hillary 30, Trump 0

Pennsylvania

Ad spending: Hillary 18 million, Trump 1 million

Michigan

Field offices: Hillary 23, Trump 0

Nevada

Field offices: Hillary 6, Trump 6

New Hampshire

Ad spending: Hillary 7 million, Trump 0
Field offices: Hillary 17, Trump 1

This only shows that the election is rigged in Hillary's favor. He doesn't need volunteers, ads, or field offices. People will just vote for him.

pr0ner wrote:

malchior wrote:The latest CNN poll has Drumpf up. We'll have to see if other polls follow or if they just done messed up. My take btw is that this poll is deeply misleading. It reflects likely voters rather than registered voters used in other polls but they over represent older folks by a decent margin. *Even when you consider older folks tend to vote more*. There are practically no millennials represented in the poll (and some will inevitably vote) and GenX as nebulous as it is is under counted too.

Over represent by a decent margin means totally excluding anyone 18-34 (see page 22)!

Bad CNN, bad.

Actually, from what I can tell, it doesn't exclude those 18-34 year olds, it's just that the sample size is too small (except when combined into the Under 45% column). Based on the fact that 786 "likely" voters were polled, and the margin of errors, the number surveyed in each age group was approx:

18-34 109 (which would have a margin of error of about 9.39%)
35-49 133
50-64 227
65+ 317

Which is certainly an odd distribution - even though older voters are more dependable voters and younger voters are less so, I don't think 40% of the likely voters are going to be over 65.

Defiant wrote:

pr0ner wrote:

malchior wrote:The latest CNN poll has Drumpf up. We'll have to see if other polls follow or if they just done messed up. My take btw is that this poll is deeply misleading. It reflects likely voters rather than registered voters used in other polls but they over represent older folks by a decent margin. *Even when you consider older folks tend to vote more*. There are practically no millennials represented in the poll (and some will inevitably vote) and GenX as nebulous as it is is under counted too.

Over represent by a decent margin means totally excluding anyone 18-34 (see page 22)!

Bad CNN, bad.

Actually, from what I can tell, it doesn't exclude those 18-34 year olds, it's just that the sample size is too small (except when combined into the Under 45% column). Based on the fact that 786 "likely" voters were polled, and the margin of errors, the number surveyed in each age group was approx:

18-34 109 (which would have a margin of error of about 9.39%)
35-49 133
50-64 227
65+ 317

Which is certainly an odd distribution - even though older voters are more dependable voters and younger voters are less so, I don't think 40% of the likely voters are going to be over 65.

I'm guessing you used the maths to get those numbers from the data?

"The cyber is so big"

Well, that’s it. And you know cyber is becoming so big today. It’s becoming something that a number of years ago, short number of years ago, wasn’t even a word. And now the cyber is so big. And you know you look at what they’re doing with the Internet, how they’re taking and recruiting people through the Internet. And part of it is the psychology because so many people think they’re winning. Any you know, there’s a whole big thing. Even today’s psychology — where CNN came out with a big poll. Their big poll came out today that Trump is winning. It’s good psychology, you know. It’s good psychology. I know that for a fact because people they didn’t call me yesterday, they’re calling me today. So that’s the way life works, right?

pr0ner wrote:
I'm guessing you used the maths to get those numbers from the data?