Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote:

Enough wrote:I am thinking this story of Trump doing business with Cuba during the embargo is a mini-October surprise. If there is one state Trump almost MUST win to be POTUS that would be Florida. And now Rubio is saying Trump should answer questions on breaking the embargo. This could really sting Drumpf in Florida...

Rubio saying that strikes me as a big f'ing deal, because if nothing else it suggests that Rubio thinks the Cuban community / Florida voters will lose their shit over it.

It's also a big deal because it could lead Rubio to be the first Trump endorser to recant.

538 has Florida showing blue again after the earliest post-debate polls, and this doesn't yet reflect the Cuba news. I trust that Tim Kaine is on Spanish-language media pushing hard on this.

Trump has few paths to victory, and they all require Florida.

Whoops. The Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money. Have Farenthold and Eichenwald have been on fire this whole election season, or is it just me that feels like the intensity has been scaled up to 11 in terms of investigative journalism these last two to three weeks?

Whoa. I didn't check the New York Attorney General's website. Soliciting more than $25,000 in funds for charity within New York without registering is illegal and fraudulent.

TRUMP UNIVERSITY - FRAUD.
TRUMP FOUNDATION - FRAUD.



TRUMP TAX RETURNS - LIKELY FRAUD.
TRUMP THE CANDIDATE - FRAUD.

White collar crime...he was just interpreting the rules in a way that was clearly not correct - totally his bad, mea culpa. He said he was sorry and he'll have his accountants and lawyers draw up a check. Totally won't happen again.

That's just Trump being smart,

Dogstar wrote:Whoops. The Trump Foundation lacks the certification required for charities that solicit money. Have Farenthold and Eichenwald have been on fire this whole election season, or is it just me that feels like the intensity has been scaled up to 11 in terms of investigative journalism these last two to three weeks?

Farenthold and Eichenwald are good reporters. But honestly I think part of it is that Trump's shown himself to be fairly incompetent and sloppy, and no one's really poked around him all that much before. And Farenthold and Eichenwald appear to be (bizarrely) literally the only reporters on the Trump scandal beat.

Dogstar wrote: When the term deplorable was specifically associated with being "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic ," why would someone go out of their way to identify themselves with a sticker or shirt? I'm seriously asking, because aside from em2nought's decal, I've seen stuff on t-shirts, signs, cars, and Facebook tags. I can understand promoting one's support of Trump, but the deplorable thing -- my brain hits reset. Any help?

When Clinton applies the term to half of the conservative voters it just confirms the notion that there can be no compromising. When liberals and conservatives compromise what is really meant is for conservatives to give up position and liberal to gain position. It's sort of a badge of honor to be called deplorable by someone as vile as Hillary. Maybe we really should start being deplorable?

Its kind of funny to be told to go put on my Klan robes by people whose democrat grandparents probably actually wore them.

em2nought wrote:

Dogstar wrote: When the term deplorable was specifically associated with being "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic ," why would someone go out of their way to identify themselves with a sticker or shirt? I'm seriously asking, because aside from em2nought's decal, I've seen stuff on t-shirts, signs, cars, and Facebook tags. I can understand promoting one's support of Trump, but the deplorable thing -- my brain hits reset. Any help?

When Clinton applies the term to half of the conservative voters it just confirms the notion that there can be no compromising.

No, compromise is available to the other half.

In case you're confused, you're on the basket side of things.

em2nought wrote:

Dogstar wrote: When the term deplorable was specifically associated with being "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic ," why would someone go out of their way to identify themselves with a sticker or shirt? I'm seriously asking, because aside from em2nought's decal, I've seen stuff on t-shirts, signs, cars, and Facebook tags. I can understand promoting one's support of Trump, but the deplorable thing -- my brain hits reset. Any help?

When Clinton applies the term to half of the conservative voters it just confirms the notion that there can be no compromising. When liberals and conservatives compromise what is really meant is for conservatives to give up position and liberal to gain position. It's sort of a badge of honor to be called deplorable by someone as vile as Hillary. Maybe we really should start being deplorable?

She didn't call conservatives deplorable. She didn't even call Trump supporters generally deplorable. She applied the term very specifically to those who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic."

When you can't understand that, you're a poor listener. When you apply the term to yourself, we're not.

Its kind of funny to be told to go put on my Klan robes by people whose democrat grandparents probably actually wore them.

Jesus Christ. Do we have to explain this again? Here you go.

In short: "Nigger" was a 1960's Mississippi Democrat's favorite word. He was a racist, and so are you.

Unagi wrote:to Rip:
Enjoy your tiny little place on the wrong side of history, cause that's what you are carving out for yourself here.
Honestly Rip, you hitching yourself to this candidate has really been an eye opener for the true person behind all your posts, over the years.
I don't think you could have found a better match in a candidate than Trump.

He's not pro Trump, he's anti-Hillary. No matter the cost.

Unagi wrote:to Rip:
Enjoy your tiny little place on the wrong side of history, cause that's what you are carving out for yourself here.
Honestly Rip, you hitching yourself to this candidate has really been an eye opener for the true person behind all your posts, over the years.
I don't think you could have found a better match in a candidate than Trump.

I'm hitching myself to anything but Hillary.

The only thing being carved out is we are about to have the worst POTUS in history no matter what happens.

Your personal prejudices are grounded in political rhetoric. More so than most.

El Guapo wrote:

Enough wrote:I am thinking this story of Trump doing business with Cuba during the embargo is a mini-October surprise. If there is one state Trump almost MUST win to be POTUS that would be Florida. And now Rubio is saying Trump should answer questions on breaking the embargo. This could really sting Drumpf in Florida...

Rubio saying that strikes me as a big f'ing deal, because if nothing else it suggests that Rubio thinks the Cuban community / Florida voters will lose their shit over it.

Also - is this something where if it's true and Trump knew about it, he could have criminal liability, at least in theory?

I personally think this is Rubio getting back at Trump. I don't think Rubio is concerned at all whether Cuban Americans dump Trump over this. I think he'd be thrilled.

em2nought wrote: Its kind of funny to be told to go put on my Klan robes by people whose democrat grandparents probably actually wore them.

You're probably right, and I consider myself lucky to have risen above that bullshit, in spite of my environment.

It's personally sad to me see so many, even in 2016, have not.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

em2nought wrote: Its kind of funny to be told to go put on my Klan robes by people whose democrat grandparents probably actually wore them.

You're probably right, and I consider myself lucky to have risen above that bullshit, in spite of my environment.

It's personally sad to me see so many, even in 2016, have not.

Well, if we assume that political viewpoints are genetic somehow, then it's more likely that his grandparents were democrats, and yours were Republicans.

Holman wrote: Jesus Christ. Do we have to explain this again? Here you go.

In short: "Nigger" was a 1960's Mississippi Democrat's favorite word. He was a racist, and so are you.

Whatever it takes to let you sleep at night https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SStdawtYFA

You know you're in for a truthy session when the secret agenda is going to be revealed.

He went full D'Souza.

You never go full D'Souza.

em2nought wrote:
When Clinton applies the term to half of the conservative voters it just confirms the notion that there can be no compromising. When liberals and conservatives compromise what is really meant is for conservatives to give up position and liberal to gain position. It's sort of a badge of honor to be called deplorable by someone as vile as Hillary. Maybe we really should start being deplorable?

Its kind of funny to be told to go put on my Klan robes by people whose democrat grandparents probably actually wore them.

Hillary didn't call half of conservatives deplorable, she called half of Trump's followers deplorable. True conservatives are appalled at the rise of Trump and want nothing to do with him. Those are the folks that are either going to stay home on election day, or hold their noses and vote for Hillary as the only sane choice.

Default wrote:

em2nought wrote:
When Clinton applies the term to half of the conservative voters it just confirms the notion that there can be no compromising. When liberals and conservatives compromise what is really meant is for conservatives to give up position and liberal to gain position. It's sort of a badge of honor to be called deplorable by someone as vile as Hillary. Maybe we really should start being deplorable?

Its kind of funny to be told to go put on my Klan robes by people whose democrat grandparents probably actually wore them.

Hillary didn't call half of conservatives deplorable, she called half of Trump's followers deplorable. True conservatives are appalled at the rise of Trump and want nothing to do with him. Those are the folks that are either going to stay home on election day, or hold their noses and vote for Hillary as the only sane choice.

I'll admit that it's a roll of the dice, but I'd rather roll that dice than continue on our present course.

Washington Post: Trump Foundation is not properly registered and certified in the state of New York

Donald Trump’s charitable foundation — which has been sustained for years by donors outside the Trump family — has never obtained the certification that New York requires before charities can solicit money from the public, according to the state attorney general’s office.

This just gets better and better.

em2nought wrote:
Its kind of funny to be told to go put on my Klan robes by people whose democrat grandparents probably actually wore them.

The yellow star sewn onto my grandparents white robes added a festive touch.

em2nought wrote:

Holman wrote: Jesus Christ. Do we have to explain this again? Here you go.

In short: "Nigger" was a 1960's Mississippi Democrat's favorite word. He was a racist, and so are you.

Whatever it takes to let you sleep at night https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SStdawtYFA

Good lord, D'Souza is asinine. But I've heard his shtick, so you'll forgive me if I don't watch every minute of that hour-plus.

For those wondering, D'Souza has blown the lid off the secret that today's Democrats are the real racists. This is because up through the 60's the southern wing of the party adamantly opposed civil rights.

This is true even though the party split over precisely this issue and the southern Democrats became the GOP's base voters, who are now the real anti-racists due to their continuing opposition to civil rights.

Supporting Trump to fix the deficit is like shooting yourself in the head to cure a headache. Trump's tax plan would cost $10 TRILLION.

Trump also suggested the US not pay its debts. That's consistent with his "business experience" -- but that's what Greece and third world countries do, not the world's economic leader.

It's impossible for me to put myself in the shoes of a Trump supporter, but I do wonder how they reconcile all the conservative officials, generals, newspapers, etc. refusing to endorse him. You would think at some point, regardless of your political views, you'd think, "This is pretty much unprecedented. Hmmm.....maybe there IS something wrong here..."

Zarathud wrote:Supporting Trump to fix the deficit is like shooting yourself in the head to cure a headache. Trump's tax plan would cost $10 TRILLION.

Trump also suggested the US not pay its debts. That's consistent with his "business experience" -- but that's what Greece and third world countries do, not the world's economic leader.

He changed the plan, it's only $5 Trillion now.

em2nought wrote:

Wait, so the *ship* is the debt? But then we should ram the iceberg at maximum speed, right, as that would destroy the ship, aka the debt.

So in conclusion, we should maintain our current policies, only more so.

YellowKing wrote:It's impossible for me to put myself in the shoes of a Trump supporter, but I do wonder how they reconcile all the conservative officials, generals, newspapers, etc. refusing to endorse him. You would think at some point, regardless of your political views, you'd think, "This is pretty much unprecedented. Hmmm.....maybe there IS something wrong here..."

Trump isn't HILLARY GODDAMN CLINTON, ergo he deserves their support. Or something...

Rip wrote:

Unagi wrote:to Rip:
Enjoy your tiny little place on the wrong side of history, cause that's what you are carving out for yourself here.
Honestly Rip, you hitching yourself to this candidate has really been an eye opener for the true person behind all your posts, over the years.
I don't think you could have found a better match in a candidate than Drumpf.

I'm hitching myself to anything but Hillary.

The only thing being carved out is we are about to have the worst POTUS in history no matter what happens.

Hillary would be the *worst* President in history? I'm sure Drumpf would be. Maybe even worst leader in the western world in the post-WW2 era but Clinton would be worse than say a Harding, Buchanan, Fillmore, or Tyler? That seems hard to imagine.

Side note - Drumpf is presently wasting his time attacking a former Miss Universe contestant by implying she has a sex tape. Seriously - this is beyond bonkers. Anyone who votes for him really should be ashamed of themselves. There is absolutely no reasonable excuse anymore. The man is beyond repugnant.

malchior wrote:Hillary would be the *worst* President in history? I'm sure Trump would be. Maybe even worst leader in the western world in the post-WW2 era but Clinton would be worse than say a Harding, Buchanan, Fillmore, or Tyler? That seems hard to imagine.

But you're thinking about this logically. Remember CROOKED HILLARY is going to stack the Supreme Court with Obamacare loving Abortionists that are going to take all your guns and force you to gay-marry an immigrant. Don't you realize what's at stake here?

Again, I watched the debate. I have no idea how I see MORE Trump signs around my town then I did last week. It boggles the mind.

em2nought wrote:I'll admit that it's a roll of the dice, but I'd rather roll that dice than continue on our present course.

If you are worried about the debt, you're riding the wrong horse.

Trump wants to cut taxes by $4 trillion, increase military spending, have the Feds pay for maternity leave, and he hasn't specified what he would cut to do it - and he has said he would not tamper with Medicare and Social Security. There's no way he can do this without busting the budget.

Clinton on the other hand, has called for increased federal spending but has proposed a deficit neutral plan, paid for by tax increases. Now you may not like her increased spending, nor her tax increases, but at least she isn't busting the budget.

So if you are really, really concerned about the deficit/debt, please explain your choice, otherwise, you're really not concerned about it all.

Smoove_B wrote:Again, I watched the debate. I have no idea how I see MORE Trump signs around my town then I did last week. It boggles the mind.

Because Drumpf is the "double down" candidate? i.e. Is it more signs, but maybe roughly the same number of yards? Or is it a lot more yards too?

Forget "second amendment people". What about all those fifth amendment people?

As part of the couple’s divorce proceedings, Ivana Trump’s lawyers asked him under oath about his dealings with other women and whether he had been faithful to his wife.

Instead of answering, Donald Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Over the course of five depositions that summer, he was asked approximately 100 questions related to marital infidelity. He pleaded the Fifth on 97 of them........

.......Inside the moral and ethical bubble that Trump has created for himself, taking the Fifth 97 times is a savvy move, and powerful men aren’t constrained by marital vows. Outside that bubble, the Fifth Amendment is apparently used only by criminals, and adultery is a sin to be blamed on both spouses.

A spokeswoman for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

Of course not.

malchior wrote:Hillary would be the *worst* President in history? I'm sure Drumpf would be. Maybe even worst leader in the western world in the post-WW2 era but Clinton would be worse than say a Harding, Buchanan, Fillmore, or Tyler? That seems hard to imagine.

Francisco Franco ruled until 1975.

Poor Trump. Someone should have warned him what happens to your skeleton closet when you run for president. He might have thought twice about the risks/rewards of his ploy.

Blackhawk wrote:He might have thought twice about the risks/rewards of his ploy.

The fact that he's polling higher than 5% reflects more on the American public than anything else at this point. It's unthinkable.

Isgrimnur wrote:

malchior wrote:Hillary would be the *worst* President in history? I'm sure Drumpf would be. Maybe even worst leader in the western world in the post-WW2 era but Clinton would be worse than say a Harding, Buchanan, Fillmore, or Tyler? That seems hard to imagine.

Francisco Franco ruled until 1975.

Is he still dead?

You can take the Fifth Amendment in a civil case? Learn something new every day. Law and Order never taught me that!

tgb wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

malchior wrote:Hillary would be the *worst* President in history? I'm sure Drumpf would be. Maybe even worst leader in the western world in the post-WW2 era but Clinton would be worse than say a Harding, Buchanan, Fillmore, or Tyler? That seems hard to imagine.

Francisco Franco ruled until 1975.

Is he still dead?

He is, but twenty years is a good post-WWII stretch.