Octopus Overlords

Trump's comments on how we should have "just taken the oil" in Iraq is...mind-boggling. You could tell Matt Lauer didn't even know how to proceed with that comment. Apparently Trump's idea on "taking the oil" is to "leave a small group behind" to guard the oil fields. As in - what? Occupying a sovereign nation and taking over their natural reserves?

And apparently Trump can tell from the "body language" of intelligence staff delivering his security briefings that they are unhappy with Obama "doing the opposite" of their recommendations. Just...wow.

It's just baffling to me that 40% of Americans are willing to support this buffoon. I just can't wrap my mind around it.

40% of Americans are apparently sans mind.

And Matt Lauer needs to quit. Useless turf.

tjg_marantz wrote:40% of Americans are apparently sans mind.

And Matt Lauer needs to quit. Useless turf.

Looks like Lauer is getting widely pilloried for the Trump interview.

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

So what you are saying is it will be really embarrassing when Trump beats her.

Trump doesn't need all that stuff he has Wikileaks and Putin for the easy win.

El Guapo wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:40% of Americans are apparently sans mind.

And Matt Lauer needs to quit. Useless turf.

Looks like Lauer is getting widely pilloried for the Trump interview.

I'm not surprised, for a moment there I thought I was in bizarro world and all of the sudden media bias flip-flopped and Republican get the softballs while the Democrats get the tough ones.

It was a refreshing change but it totally caught me off guard.

Nice that you guys only notice when it doesn't play against the candidate you dislike.

Matt Lauer: "I have a pressing question about the emails."
Clinton: [Answers question about the emails]
Matt Lauer: "Now more about those emails."
Clinton: [Answers question about the emails]
Matt Lauer: "Now let's go to a questioner in the audience about the emails."
Clinton: [Answers question about the emails]

Trump: "I know more than anyone ever about the Middle East, and we shoulda occupied the country and seized the oil. A real leader like Putin would do that."
Matt Lauer: "Great. Next question."

How did Matt f'ing Lauer get picked for that anyway?

That whole thing was an embarrassment for NBC. Was Ellen not available?

Rip wrote:So what you are saying is it will be really embarrassing when Trump beats her.

IF Trump beats her, then yes - it would be incredibly embarrassing. And I didn't mention it in my post, but it is quite remarkable terrifying how well he has done in some of those states given his lack of resources and spending.

Trumputin will make America great again, Comrades!

My favorite part of the forum was Trumputin getting called out on his previous assertions that he had a super secret plan to quickly eradicate ISIS once he was in office.

"I'm going to sit down with the generals and tell them they have 30 days to get me a plan!"
"Err....didn't you say you already have a plan?"
"Ummm....yeah....but...I...ummm...I'm going to see if their plan matches mine! It will be a test! If they don't match my plan perfectly, I'll know they're evil PURE AND SIMPLE by way of the Eighth Dimension!"

Well at least he didn't need an earpiece so someone could coach him through what to say.

Russian technology is ahead of America when it comes to miniaturization, silly boy. Trust me, Trumputin was in contact with his owner throughout the entire forum.

Although he wasn't getting terribly good advice from him last night, was he?

She could be taking direct orders form Lizard People and she would still be a better candidate.

But seriously, so what? This does nothing to change the fact that Trump is unqualified for the job. The man does not have one coherent idea on anything.

When Infowars is leading the charge, along with James Woods (yes, that James Woods), you know there's substance.

Archinerd wrote:She could be taking direct orders form Lizard People and she would still be a better candidate.

But seriously, so what? This does nothing to change the fact that Trump is unqualified for the job. The man does not have one coherent idea on anything.

It would appear that Hillary doesn't have one idea, coherent or otherwise. She is just a repeat-a-bot for whoever is on the other end of that earpiece. At least when she isn't coughing up a lung.

I love how you try to turn reliance on the assistance of others as a negative. Heaven forbid that a leader actually take advice and assistance from their advisers.

Rip wrote:

Archinerd wrote:She could be taking direct orders form Lizard People and she would still be a better candidate.

But seriously, so what? This does nothing to change the fact that Trump is unqualified for the job. The man does not have one coherent idea on anything.

It would appear that Hillary doesn't have one idea, coherent or otherwise. She is just a repeat-a-bot for whoever is on the other end of that earpiece. At least when she isn't coughing up a lung.

What coherent plan did Trumputin give out last night?

Oh...wait...was it when he said he was going to make America great again, then lied about not supporting the invasion of Iraq. Or was it when he yet again announced he had a super secret plan to defeat ISIS, but couldn't tell us? I'm surprised he didn't also announce he had a girlfriend...but that she lived in Canada and that's why we could never meet her.

Man, it is true, you guys would defend pretty much anything she does. If only people were so understanding of Nixon.

So...you got nothin' then?

So when you guys are talking about what a great debater, what you really mean is she is a great repeater?

Still can't tell us what Trumputin said last night that was substantive in any way, can you?

Seriously - that could be any number of things. Glare, for one. Maybe a hearing aid (although I'm guessing that would play right into the great right wing health conspiracy)? One of the new Apple Air Buds? Certainly there should be more shots where you could get a better view, right?

hepcat wrote:Still can't tell us what Trumputin said last night that was substantive in any way, can you?

Why do I need to. This election isn't about picking the best candidate, that ship has sailed. It is just about eliminating the worst one. Trump could have just stared off into space and muttered and that would be better than having to have someone feed you answers.

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:Still can't tell us what Trumputin said last night that was substantive in any way, can you?

Why do I need to.

Then you probably shouldn't have used it as a complaint against Clinton earlier.

In any case, you've just proven that you're everything you complain others are. Although that was common knowledge a long time ago.

The fact that you believe someone having no answers is better than having someone that actively seeks out expert opinions to inform his/her decisions is mind-boggling and dangerously ignorant.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Seriously - that could be any number of things. Glare, for one. Maybe a hearing aid (although I'm guessing that would play right into the great right wing health conspiracy)? One of the new Apple Air Buds? Certainly there should be more shots where you could get a better view, right?

Rip wrote:
This election isn't about picking the best candidate, that ship has sailed.

I don't agree with this, but I know many do on both sides. All I'll say is that voting for a man-child who throws a tantrum anytime his delusions do not align with reality is not the answer.

Archinerd wrote:

Rip wrote:
This election isn't about picking the best candidate, that ship has sailed.

I don't agree with this, but I know many do on both sides. All I'll say is that voting for a man-child who throws a tantrum anytime his delusions do not align with reality is not the answer.

But electing someone who can't even answer half a dozens questions by themselves is?

The simple fact is that you can't negate Clinton's years of experience. She's lived in the White House, served as First Lady, Secretary of State, and senator. She's got more political experience than almost any other non-incumbent candidate we've ever had. You can't conspiracy that away. You can disagree with her policies or her morals, but you can't wish away her qualifications.

That, to me, is what it ultimately comes down to. It's why all the talk of email servers and Benghazi have no effect. I'd rather have an experienced person I disagree with (and there's a LOT I disagree with when it comes to Hillary) than a completely unqualified person. Because one already knows the rules of the game, whereas the other poses a significant danger from not understanding those rules.

I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer from anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama based on his lack of political experience, but is suddenly embracing someone who has even less. I learned my lesson. I think Obama's lack of experience *did* hurt him, particularly in his first term. I don't want to see that mistake not only repeated, but magnified.

Rip wrote:But electing someone who can't even answer half a dozens questions by themselves is?

You're assuming that's an earpiece, then assuming people are feeding her answers, while simultaneously ignoring years of her answering questions by herself.

Rip wrote:Man, it is true, you guys would defend pretty much anything she does. If only people were so understanding of Nixon.

Pot. Kettle. Trump.

Seriously, you are the king of wild suspicions and accusations while ignoring the Elephant in the Room.

YellowKing wrote:The simple fact is that you can't negate Clinton's years of experience. She's lived in the White House, served as First Lady, Secretary of State, and senator. She's got more political experience than almost any other non-incumbent candidate we've ever had. You can't conspiracy that away. You can disagree with her policies or her morals, but you can't wish away her qualifications.

That, to me, is what it ultimately comes down to. It's why all the talk of email servers and Benghazi have no effect. I'd rather have an experienced person I disagree with (and there's a LOT I disagree with when it comes to Hillary) than a completely unqualified person. Because one already knows the rules of the game, whereas the other poses a significant danger from not understanding those rules.

I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer from anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama based on his lack of political experience, but is suddenly embracing someone who has even less. I learned my lesson. I think Obama's lack of experience *did* hurt him, particularly in his first term. I don't want to see that mistake not only repeated, but magnified.

Her experience or the experience of whoever tells her what to say and do?

Quit your bullshit.

Rip, repetition does not equal truth.

You may have to say that a dozen or so times though before you believe it though.

Zarathud wrote:

Rip wrote:Man, it is true, you guys would defend pretty much anything she does. If only people were so understanding of Nixon.

Pot. Kettle. Trump.

Seriously, you are the king of wild suspicions and accusations while ignoring the Elephant in the Room.

Not ignoring it, I'd be thrilled to have the option of Rand, Bernie, or even Ted over either of these stooges. When you only have two shitty choices ending up with a shitty result is the only option. The only debate is whose baby has the shittiest diaper.

I'll take a leader who seeks advice over an idiot who believes he's got a good brain any day of the week.

P.S. There are numerous screen and video grabs out there clearly showing there was no earpiece. But that won't stop anyone because it's "invisible."

And then there's video.

Isgrimnur wrote:And then there's video.

There are so many shots there that clearly show the ears without an earpiece. HOW DID SHE HIDE IT????

<please don't say keistered it, please don't say keistered it, please don't say keistered it>