Octopus Overlords

Papa Smurph wrote: I can agree with smutly on one thing: both candidates are bad. But to suggest that HRC is anywhere NEAR as bad as Trump is idiotic. I wish the country had a good choice, but the choice is really to vote for evil or vote for corrupt. I know which I'll vote for!

There are other candidates on the ballet. Having to vote for the lesser of two evils is no way I want to go about an election.

mori wrote:

Papa Smurph wrote: I can agree with smutly on one thing: both candidates are bad. But to suggest that HRC is anywhere NEAR as bad as Trump is idiotic. I wish the country had a good choice, but the choice is really to vote for evil or vote for corrupt. I know which I'll vote for!

There are other candidates on the ballet. Having to vote for the lesser of two evils is no way I want to go about an election.

And if this were a normal election, more power to you. But Hillary needs all the help she can get, and every vote that isn't cast, every vote to a third party candidate or write-in, is a vote for Farty McAssface.

That's great and all, but the reality of our current election system is that one of those two candidates is going to be the one who wins. You don't have to like it, and changing that system would be great, but it's the system we've got. You can certainly feel free to vote for whoever you want, but if you do, you'd better be 100% okay with either of the two major nominees landing in office. Most years, I can wrap my head around that.

This year, the same rules apply, but if you're telling me that you are 100% as okay with Trump being in office as Clinton being there, then I've got some pretty serious questions for you. These two candidates are in no way equivalent, and Trump is as unfit a candidate as we've seen in decades.

Then again, if you live in a state that's solidly red or blue, then go crazy with the third party vote, I guess.

mori wrote: There are other candidates on the ballet.

This is a tango with only two possible outcomes.

Voting for the one that isn't convinced vaccines and wifi aren't safe is as much of an option as voting for the one that knows nothing about our foreign affairs and is convinced that my local coal-fired power plant will happily take care of my clean air and water needs.

tgb wrote:One thing I will say in defense of Drumpf, as I silently vomit in my mouth, is that everybody seems to be taking the "grab her by the pussy" line literally.

I know a guy who thinks he's so great in the sack that once he hits someone he "has her by the pussy", and given Der Arschloch's ego, I'm guessing that's what he was referring to.

I'm not so sure that Jill Harth would agree that it is simply a vulgarian metaphor.

My insanely fanatical far right wing conservative coworker has completely covered his facebook page with endless diatribes supporting Trump. My favorite is his meme with a crying baby asking if the woman who are outraged by Trumputin's crass comments in that recording are the same ones that bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Grey. Actually, he posted that meme twice...one with a crying baby in the background, the second time with a book next to a glass of Guinness. I'm not sure I understand that last one...

He also posted one lone picture of his third wife (he shares that with Trumputin...so I guess they bond at some level) and himself with a Happy Anniversary proclamation underneath. I feel like adding the comment, "Make sure you grab her by the p#@*y!" And "The Donald wants to take your wife furniture shopping!"

Max Peck wrote:

tgb wrote:One thing I will say in defense of Drumpf, as I silently vomit in my mouth, is that everybody seems to be taking the "grab her by the pussy" line literally.

I know a guy who thinks he's so great in the sack that once he hits someone he "has her by the pussy", and given Der Arschloch's ego, I'm guessing that's what he was referring to.

I'm not so sure that Jill Harth would agree that it is simply a vulgarian metaphor.

I may very well be wrong. I'm just open to the possibility.

[edit]I have to admit, I had to Google Jill Harth

How is it this story wasn't getting more traction?

gilraen wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:I wasn't going to watch the debate tomorrow night, but I'm thinking now there's a good chance Donald is going to get all coked up and come out swinging. I mean...what could he possibly do or say that's worse than this?

NFL: Damn it, we lost all MNF viewership on the night of first debate! Oh well, they got their fix, next debate is on a Sunday night but it shouldn't be such a big deal.

Trump: PUSSY!

NFL: ...

I Lol'd. Definitely out loud.

Problem solved - Trump's comments "were made when he was a Democrat". Shut it down folks, the Gold medal in mental gymnastics has officially been awarded to the GOP Chair in Washington state.

Ben Stein is out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-stein-trump-must-go/

Because nothing inspires confidence like a turncoat.

mori wrote:

Papa Smurph wrote: I can agree with smutly on one thing: both candidates are bad. But to suggest that HRC is anywhere NEAR as bad as Trump is idiotic. I wish the country had a good choice, but the choice is really to vote for evil or vote for corrupt. I know which I'll vote for!

There are other candidates on the ballet. Having to vote for the lesser of two evils is no way I want to go about an election.

I'm not sure you understand. The choice isn't between two candidates I don't like. The choice is stark: any vote not against Trump is a vote for Trump. His candidacy MUST be crushed, so that in the future the Republican Party will not nominate such evil ever again.

Jaymann wrote:Because nothing inspires confidence like a turncoat.

Nothing inspires confidence like someone without the integrity to call out something awful in their own family.

It feels like elements of the GOP got together and decided to distance themselves from Trump and his upcoming loss to save the party. Not wanting to look weak, they agreed to wait until the next Major Stupiding hit the news in order to justify the about-face. When the leaders start to drop, their supporters begin to follow suit.

Yeah, a little conspiracy theory-y, I know.

I figure it's more indicative of a party that was forced to support someone they all hate and they continued to do so despite knowing the scorpion was going to sting them on the back while crossing the river. Sure, they can distance themselves all they want now, but they're the idiots that put him there in the first place so good luck changing that one. Their collective cries of "he's unfit to be a leader" or "we cannot support him after the most recent comments" ring hollow because if nothing else, Trump has been 100% consistent in application. They knew all this before elevating him to the position of nominee and they did it anyway, because Clinton.

Blackhawk wrote:It feels like elements of the GOP got together and decided to distance themselves from Trump and his upcoming loss to save the party. Not wanting to look weak, they agreed to wait until the next Major Stupiding hit the news in order to justify the about-face. When the leaders start to drop, their supporters begin to follow suit.

Yeah, a little conspiracy theory-y, I know.

For the ones that are running this year, I suspect it was the first Major Stupiding to hit the news after they got past their primaries.

Blackhawk wrote:It feels like elements of the GOP got together and decided to distance themselves from Trump and his upcoming loss to save the party. Not wanting to look weak, they agreed to wait until the next Major Stupiding hit the news in order to justify the about-face. When the leaders start to drop, their supporters begin to follow suit.

Yeah, a little conspiracy theory-y, I know.

GOP leaders have been in a tight spot for months. I think they started hoping for a chance to dump him right after the conventions, but then Clinton's bounce faded and she got pneumonia and they all reconciled themselves to a tight race that they thought Trump might still win. (And, of course, all this time everything Trump has ever done or said except for this one undiscovered tape was somehow just fine for them.)

Then the first debate threw them into a panic, and no one really believed Trump had it in him to win after that. But if Trump had done well at Hofstra and pulled ahead, everything today would look different. A Trump leading by a secure 4% or 5% would be allowed all the decades-old indiscretions anyone could find. All would be forgiven and the focus would be on the future.

If he does unexpectedly well tonight, managing to break even while looking contrite, things will be very different tomorrow. For all this weekend's posturing, it's still safer for the GOP to keep Trump than to lose him. All they can hope for is to keep the senate, and that probably means making peace with the nominee (and the vital base) while knowing he'll lose.

EDIT: There has already been some flash polling, and a significant majority of GOP-identified voters want the party to keep Trump.

Thanks to Trump, I'm reading a lot more New Yorker articles than I would otherwise, so I guess I owe him a "Thanks Trump!" for that.

Seeing Trump in Trump Tower would normally be too high-brow for the likes of me, but the little nugget buried in the middle of this paragraph (and they still use proper paragraphs, bless 'em) made it totally worthwhile.

This election season, the real building has developed an imaginary counterpart, for which it stands as a kind of credential. “I would build a great wall,” Trump said at his candidacy announcement, referring to his proposal for a concrete barrier along the United States border with Mexico. “And nobody builds walls better than me, believe me.” “I’m a builder,” he affirmed, when asked at a press event in Iowa about the logistics of the wall’s design and construction. “I know how to build.” Trump Tower was the development project that established Trump’s reputation as a builder, as a Manhattan real-estate guy independent of his father’s properties in Brooklyn and Queens—and as a man of wealth and taste. Somehow, Trump’s identification with this single midtown skyscraper has long provided him with an inoculation against the consequences of subsequent flimflam and failure; somehow, it still serves as the security against which the surname is licensed; somehow, the tower substantiates its maker’s cultivated image (as surely as the dark suits and shiny cufflinks that it visually recalls) as a rich man, a businessman, a man of affairs. “It is a fact that my buildings are acclaimed and they have lasting power,” Trump wrote in a 2014 newspaper column.

Yeah, I see what you did there...

tgb wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

tgb wrote:One thing I will say in defense of Drumpf, as I silently vomit in my mouth, is that everybody seems to be taking the "grab her by the pussy" line literally.

I know a guy who thinks he's so great in the sack that once he hits someone he "has her by the pussy", and given Der Arschloch's ego, I'm guessing that's what he was referring to.

I'm not so sure that Jill Harth would agree that it is simply a vulgarian metaphor.

I may very well be wrong. I'm just open to the possibility.

[edit]I have to admit, I had to Google Jill Harth

How is it this story wasn't getting more traction?

I'm not sure how you came to you generous possible conclusion.
(Which I realize you are reconsidering)

He didn't say something like: "once you grab em' by the pussy , you can do anything you want with em"

He said "if you are a star, you can do anything you want to em', you can just grab em' by the pussy. "

Trump should move to England and he could just start taking about his erections.

Ya'll are just a buncha PC police. Drumpf just tells it like it is. Pussies need grabbin', and he's just the man to do the grabbin.

Chaz wrote:Trump is as unfit a candidate as we've seen in decades.

You spelled "ever" wrong. I invite you to identify a single major party candidate that has ever been nominated that is less qualified than this piece of shit.

How far did Deez Nuts get?

hepcat wrote:How far did Deez Nuts get?

I don't know, but he's looking like a relatively decent option around now

I'm thinking write in.

I agree with Holman that it's all about the momentum. Trump's been in a tailspin since losing the first debate and this latest scandal just accelerates his downward slide. He might have been able to shrug it off if everything was going swimmingly otherwise. Instead, it provided cover to desert a sinking ship.

Tonight's debate will either arrest his decline or be his last hurrah. I don't think there's any middle outcome.

But this reality TV star has broken every rule and upset one prediction after another, so who knows?

Agreed on tonight being a key point in support from the party. It is survival time. Thune might have jumped the gun a little but the top leadership had enough time due to the weekend to drag out their position with Ryan deploying a rear guard last night. If he tanks tonight it will be an avalanche of people abandoning him like the rats they are.

tgb wrote:

mori wrote:

Papa Smurph wrote: I can agree with smutly on one thing: both candidates are bad. But to suggest that HRC is anywhere NEAR as bad as Trump is idiotic. I wish the country had a good choice, but the choice is really to vote for evil or vote for corrupt. I know which I'll vote for!

There are other candidates on the ballet. Having to vote for the lesser of two evils is no way I want to go about an election.

And if this were a normal election, more power to you. But Hillary needs all the help she can get, and every vote that isn't cast, every vote to a third party candidate or write-in, is a vote for Farty McAssface.

I have to sleep at night and my vote for Hillary would prevent that.

I am not worried that Trump will win the election. It is not going to happen and he never wanted to be president.

malchior wrote:If he tanks tonight it will be an avalanche of people abandoning him like the rats they are.

What on Earth could he possibly say or do tonight that would demonstrate in any way that he's undeniably capable of fulfilling the role of PotUS?

Smoove_B wrote: What on Earth could he possibly say or do tonight that would demonstrate in any way that he's undeniably capable of fulfilling the role of PotUS?

"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton."

Smoove_B wrote:

malchior wrote:If he tanks tonight it will be an avalanche of people abandoning him like the rats they are.

What on Earth could he possibly say or do tonight that would demonstrate in any way that he's undeniably capable of fulfilling the role of PotUS?

His only hope is to change the focus to Hillary Goddam Clinton. With all the sturm und drang surrounding pussy grabbing, her leaked remarks to her banking overlords have passed nearly without comment. If he can make her defend that and establish that Bill Clinton is a bigger slimeball than Trump is, he might be able to change the conversation.

He's got to deflect the focus from his own reprehensible character and gross incompetence by showing his opponent to be even worse.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Chaz wrote:Trump is as unfit a candidate as we've seen in decades.

You spelled "ever" wrong. I invite you to identify a single major party candidate that has ever been nominated that is less qualified than this piece of shit.

I was originally going to go with "ever", but decided to hedge my bets. My memory of American History classes is hazy enough that I wasn't sure about some of the nominees in the era of Grant or Taft.

I can guarantee you that all of them had *something* that qualified them to lead their party in a bid for the White House. This turd has nothing. He's the most incompetent candidate for any federal office that I've ever seen.

Kraken wrote:His only hope is to change the focus to Hillary Goddam Clinton. With all the sturm und drang surrounding pussy grabbing, her leaked remarks to her banking overlords have passed nearly without comment. If he can make her defend that and establish that Bill Clinton is a bigger slimeball than Trump is, he might be able to change the conversation.

He's got to deflect the focus from his own reprehensible character and gross incompetence by showing his opponent to be even worse.

His problem (when it comes to having an opponent, not in general) is that he doesn't know how to want the conversation not be about him.

Unagi wrote:

tgb wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

tgb wrote:One thing I will say in defense of Drumpf, as I silently vomit in my mouth, is that everybody seems to be taking the "grab her by the pussy" line literally.

I know a guy who thinks he's so great in the sack that once he hits someone he "has her by the pussy", and given Der Arschloch's ego, I'm guessing that's what he was referring to.

I'm not so sure that Jill Harth would agree that it is simply a vulgarian metaphor.

I may very well be wrong. I'm just open to the possibility.

[edit]I have to admit, I had to Google Jill Harth

How is it this story wasn't getting more traction?

I'm not sure how you came to you generous possible conclusion.

Have you read my sig?

hepcat wrote:How far did Deez Nuts get?

He got crushed by Trump, when The Donald mistook his gender.

LordMortis wrote:

Kraken wrote:His only hope is to change the focus to Hillary Goddam Clinton. With all the sturm und drang surrounding pussy grabbing, her leaked remarks to her banking overlords have passed nearly without comment. If he can make her defend that and establish that Bill Clinton is a bigger slimeball than Trump is, he might be able to change the conversation.

He's got to deflect the focus from his own reprehensible character and gross incompetence by showing his opponent to be even worse.

His problem (when it comes to having an opponent, not in general) is that he doesn't know how to want the conversation not be about him.

That's a good point. It's still the only way I can imagine him pulling this out of the fire, though. It's not like he can urge discussion of "the issues" without getting creamed there, too (insofar as there are any issues beyond the candidates' characters).

Kraken wrote:That's a good point. It's still the only way I can imagine him pulling this out of the fire, though. It's not like he can urge discussion of "the issues" without getting creamed there, too (insofar as there are any issues beyond the candidates' characters).

But even if he's somehow able to argue that morally speaking, he and Hillary are equals or at least, he's no worse than she is....he still hasn't in any way addressed his complete lack of ability to govern. Or understand policy. Or international issues. Or how anything in the public sector works. No matter how many times I add it all up, I cannot figure out how anyone could possibly consider him viable in any capacity other than he has an (R) after his name.