Octopus Overlords

Katrina Pierson, one of Trump's spokes persons (who I absolutely despise), tries the "arm rest" defense, and one of her co-panelists, just absolutely melts down in laughter:

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/13/katrina ... eats-work/

It is really hilarious watching the various Trumpers get crushed in interview after interview. There are others I could post, but there are just too many, but if I get around to it I could post some good examples. But there are really too many.

Kurth wrote:

msteelers wrote:

Kurth wrote:If an accuser is willing to go on the record, report away. But reporting anonymous stories from the friends of CNN anchors? WTF

Names are left out of news stories all the time for various reasons.

True, but that in no way makes this instance right. Juveniles, whistleblowers, undercover assets, etc. Sure, report without naming the source.

But that's not what's going on here, and we all know it.

I can't quite figure this out. You appear to be serious. And that's disappointing.

Having seen how Drumpf supporters act, I am amazed that anyone is willing to give her name. I'm betting that the next stories we hear will be about death threats and threats of violence towards those women that do come forward.

But that you seem willing to automatically dismiss the victims here because they don't want to give names? Why should they? Why do they need to give the news their names? Or you? If matters proceed, then I expect that law enforcement officers may have names, but we don't need that information. But to assume that they are lying because they won't give their names? It disappoints me.

TheMix wrote:Having seen how Drumpf supporters act, I am amazed that anyone is willing to give her name. I'm betting that the next stories we hear will be about death threats and threats of violence towards those women that do come forward.

Seems that they're already getting doxxed by Fox News hosts.

Skinypupy wrote:

TheMix wrote:Having seen how Drumpf supporters act, I am amazed that anyone is willing to give her name. I'm betting that the next stories we hear will be about death threats and threats of violence towards those women that do come forward.

Seems that they're already getting doxxed by Fox News hosts.

Grrrrrr..... No way you can tell me that he didn't know what he was doing.

TheMix wrote:

Kurth wrote:

msteelers wrote:

Kurth wrote:If an accuser is willing to go on the record, report away. But reporting anonymous stories from the friends of CNN anchors? WTF

Names are left out of news stories all the time for various reasons.

True, but that in no way makes this instance right. Juveniles, whistleblowers, undercover assets, etc. Sure, report without naming the source.

But that's not what's going on here, and we all know it.

I can't quite figure this out. You appear to be serious. And that's disappointing.

Having seen how Drumpf supporters act, I am amazed that anyone is willing to give her name. I'm betting that the next stories we hear will be about death threats and threats of violence towards those women that do come forward.

But that you seem willing to automatically dismiss the victims here because they don't want to give names? Why should they? Why do they need to give the news their names? Or you? If matters proceed, then I expect that law enforcement officers may have names, but we don't need that information. But to assume that they are lying because they won't give their names? It disappoints me.

Lou Dobbs posted the address ànd phone number of one of the NY Times accusers this morning. Just awful. How many crazy, unstable people will see this information?

No wonder women would be relectuant to come forward. Who would want to put up with this kind of treatment?

Apparently, as I understand it, if they weren't lying, then they wouldn't have any issue sharing their information...

In other news, Trump called the NFL "soft" yesterday because of their head injury protocols.

At a campaign event in Lakeland, Fla., on Wednesday, the Republican presidential nominee witnessed a woman fainting in the audience. Trump asked for a doctor, and then assured the crowd that the woman would return to the rally.

After treatment, the woman did return, which prompted this from Trump, via the Washington Post: "That woman was out cold, and now she's coming back. See, we don't go by these new, and very much softer, NFL rules. Concussions -- 'Uh oh, got a little ding on the head? No, no, you can't play for the rest of the season' -- our people are tough."

Also Trump today:
In other words, JEWS!

This man really is the absolute worst. What he's riling up in this country won't be easy to contain, even after he loses.

Default wrote:And, Trump concedes Virginia to Clinton.
[https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.c ... id-verizon

Maybe he said "We need to pull America by it's vagina" and someone heard it as "We need to pull out of virginia"?

Kurth wrote:
Really??? What do you think the bulk of the 22,450 people working for Trump take home in a weekly paycheck? Should we be surprised that not more than a fraction of them have ponied up more than a $200 contribution to Trump's campaign? The comparison to contributions made to Romney by his Bain Capital and Bain & Company private equity colleagues is laughable.

Yeah, that struck me as silly. Those Bain guys have disposable income. Trump employees, no so much.

Of all the dopes Drumpf sends out to shill for him, Katrina Pierson is the dopiest. I realize the campaign is in a yuge state of denial, but someone should have figured out by now that putting this dimwit in front of reporters is never a good idea.

Skinypupy wrote:In other news, Trump called the NFL "soft" yesterday because of their head injury protocols.

At a campaign event in Lakeland, Fla., on Wednesday, the Republican presidential nominee witnessed a woman fainting in the audience. Trump asked for a doctor, and then assured the crowd that the woman would return to the rally.

After treatment, the woman did return, which prompted this from Trump, via the Washington Post: "That woman was out cold, and now she's coming back. See, we don't go by these new, and very much softer, NFL rules. Concussions -- 'Uh oh, got a little ding on the head? No, no, you can't play for the rest of the season' -- our people are tough."

Well, after she does it about 15 more times and then shots herself in the face in a parking lot in 7 years for no apparent reason, it will have been for a good cause.


Soft? Goodell would destroy Trump.

Seeing the letter from the NYT's lawyer reminded me of this all-time classic.

Captain Caveman wrote:Also Trump today:

In other words, JEWS!

"Global sovereignty" doesn't even make sense, does it? 'Global' almost seems to be an acronym for 'sovereign', no?

Sovereignty (like 'national' indicating control of one's domain), global ....wait a damn minute, is that one of those conspiracy theory buzz phrases?

OMG it is...just Googled the phrase in quotes. My God, he's more dangerous than I thought. Didn't REALLY think he was dangerous from that kind of perspective, just a rude, blustering bully, but now... And I kind of gave him a pass on many of those "dogwhistle" claims against him...now? Jesus.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Kurth wrote:
Really??? What do you think the bulk of the 22,450 people working for Trump take home in a weekly paycheck? Should we be surprised that not more than a fraction of them have ponied up more than a $200 contribution to Trump's campaign? The comparison to contributions made to Romney by his Bain Capital and Bain & Company private equity colleagues is laughable.

Yeah, that struck me as silly. Those Bain guys have disposable income. Trump employees, no so much.

What struck me was the absurdly low number, twelve employees at any level. There was a reason I included "sycophants" in my post -- it's surprising that there aren't a bunch of well-heeled management/executive-level employees ponying up, if for no other reason to be seen by Trump as loyal. On the other hand, it isn't surprising that low-paid low-level employees might not support him. If anything, I'd expect them to be chipping in (at well under the $200 level) to the Clinton campaign.

There's a large group of conservative writers and researchers who have penned a collective letter/statement against Trump.

Given our choices in the presidential election, we believe that Donald Trump is the candidate most dangerous to our nation’s founding ideals. He is a unique and dire threat to the political principles, liberties, and cultural values of justice, fairness, honesty, and decency we have long defended. We urge you to vote, as we will, for someone else.

In some ways this is just another salvo in the ongoing Republican civil war, this letter is essentially a response to a previous letter of support for Trump by ivory tower sorts. It will be interesting to see just how big of a mark all of this leaves on the party over the next few years. Personally, I think many are overstating the potential long term damage to the Republican party, just look at how quickly they recovered from Nixon.

Defiant wrote:Lou Dobb doxxes one of the women accusing Trump of groping them

Gee, I can't imagine why more women have not come forward with similar stories? It surely couldn't have anything to do with having your life utterly destroyed and placed into a world of continual trolling and harassment... Ugh.

Enough wrote:

Defiant wrote:Lou Dobb doxxes one of the women accusing Trump of groping them

Gee, I can't imagine why more women have not come forward with similar stories? It surely couldn't have anything to do with having your life utterly destroyed and placed into a world of continual trolling and harassment... Ugh.

WTF

If there's a hell, and I'm not the believing kind, fuckers like this should rot there.

Shit like this boils my blood.

No freaking wonder women don't report abuse.

RunningMn9 wrote:And by that I mean that for the *vast* majority of people in this country, virtually nothing changed in their lives because there was a conservative or a liberal in the White House.

I've been ruminating on this a lot. I'm not sure it's true. Without making a value judgement, The ACA changed the lives of no insignificant people in this country and removing it would do so again. Again without value judgements, I think entire communities have been moved to re-evaluete race relations in the last 8 years. Marriage laws have been fought and lost and won. Military actions have been fought on direction from the White House. And while the effects of these things have been minimal to me, (I lost a few not too close friends in the Bush I's Iraq war and a couple more closer friend veterans to suicide later. But none of those drastically impact my life. Much as insurance premium increases aren't drastically changing my life, even if I know more than a few previously uninsured people actively taking advantage of exchanges.) As many people as I see affected by presidential presence and decision making *vast* majority seems to a big leap.

Still it's something I am sure I'll still be thinking about into the weekend. Who knows? That might be the final cogitation to force me in to voting for Clinton.

Xmann wrote:WTF

If there's a hell, and I'm not the believing kind, fuckers like this should rot there.

Shit like this boils my blood.

No freaking wonder women don't report abuse.

Lou Dobb's is really, really sorry.

malchior wrote:

Xmann wrote:WTF

If there's a hell, and I'm not the believing kind, fuckers like this should rot there.

Shit like this boils my blood.

No freaking wonder women don't report abuse.

Lou Dobb's is really, really sorry.

Suuuuuuuuuuure he is.

LordMortis wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:And by that I mean that for the *vast* majority of people in this country, virtually nothing changed in their lives because there was a conservative or a liberal in the White House.

I've been ruminating on this a lot. I'm not sure it's true. Without making a value judgement, The ACA changed the lives of no insignificant people in this country and removing it would do so again. Again without value judgements, I think entire communities have been moved to re-evaluete race relations in the last 8 years. Marriage laws have been fought and lost and won. Military actions have been fought on direction from the White House. And while the effects of these things have been minimal to me, (I lost a few not too close friends in the Bush I's Iraq war and a couple more closer friend veterans to suicide later. But none of those drastically impact my life. Much as insurance premium increases aren't drastically changing my life, even if I know more than a few previously uninsured people actively taking advantage of exchanges.) As many people as I see affected by presidential presence and decision making *vast* majority seems to a big leap.

Still it's something I am sure I'll still be thinking about into the weekend. Who knows? That might be the final cogitation to force me in to voting for Clinton.

To take just one political issue: for people who believe in homosexual equality, the Obama years have been a civil rights revolution comparable to the 1960s. Sotomayor and Kagan have been key, and both would have been socially conservative appointments under a President McCain.

TheMix wrote:

Kurth wrote:

msteelers wrote:

Kurth wrote:If an accuser is willing to go on the record, report away. But reporting anonymous stories from the friends of CNN anchors? WTF

Names are left out of news stories all the time for various reasons.

True, but that in no way makes this instance right. Juveniles, whistleblowers, undercover assets, etc. Sure, report without naming the source.

But that's not what's going on here, and we all know it.

I can't quite figure this out. You appear to be serious. And that's disappointing.

Having seen how Drumpf supporters act, I am amazed that anyone is willing to give her name. I'm betting that the next stories we hear will be about death threats and threats of violence towards those women that do come forward.

But that you seem willing to automatically dismiss the victims here because they don't want to give names? Why should they? Why do they need to give the news their names? Or you? If matters proceed, then I expect that law enforcement officers may have names, but we don't need that information. But to assume that they are lying because they won't give their names? It disappoints me.

I completely understand and am sympathetic to why sexual assault victims might not want to come forward, and I don't think that someone not willing to go on the record is lying. I also think Dobbs and anyone else threatening someone claiming they were assaulted is the lowest form of scum. But that said, we have a fundamental right in this country to face our accusers.

If a victim wasn't willing to report the incident at the time, waits a decade or more, and then isn't willing to go on the record with her claims, that's a real problem. Again, I'm not saying that means the claims are fabricated, but it puts the accused in an absolutely impossible position.

I know Trump is hardly deserving of sympathy, and trust me, there's none coming from me, but bad facts don't make good law. I don't agree with lowering our standards of what's acceptable/responsible/ethical journalism just because the target is Trump.

You're right to be amazed that any victim of Trump is willing to come forward publicly with her accusations given the current climate and the beyond scary nature of many of Trump's supporters. That's what makes their decision to do so an act of courage. I don't fault those victims (and I don't really doubt there are more) who don't make that decision. But that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right for the media to report completely unsubstantiated, anonymous accusations of sexual assault.

Kurth wrote:I completely understand and am sympathetic to why sexual assault victims might not want to come forward, and I don't think that someone not willing to go on the record is lying. I also think Dobbs and anyone else threatening someone claiming they were assaulted is the lowest form of scum. But that said, we have a fundamental right in this country to face our accusers.

If a victim wasn't willing to report the incident at the time, waits a decade or more, and then isn't willing to go on the record with her claims, that's a real problem. Again, I'm not saying that means the claims are fabricated, but it puts the accused in an absolutely impossible position.

I know Trump is hardly deserving of sympathy, and trust me, there's none coming from me, but bad facts don't make good law. I don't agree with lowering our standards of what's acceptable/responsible/ethical journalism just because the target is Trump.

You're right to be amazed that any victim of Trump is willing to come forward publicly with her accusations given the current climate and the beyond scary nature of many of Trump's supporters. That's what makes their decision to do so an act of courage. I don't fault those victims (and I don't really doubt there are more) who don't make that decision. But that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right for the media to report completely unsubstantiated, anonymous accusations of sexual assault.

I agree with you. The media should not report what is at this point really nothing more than gossip. As you note, it is impossible to defend yourself against this. I understand the reluctance of any woman to come forth but the media needs to be responsible and restrain itself from rumor mongering, even it it is Trump.

Thanks for the response, Kurth. That makes me feel a little better.

But I'm not sure I agree with a couple of your points. First, from the NYT's letter/response, above, I don't think we should be assuming that the news is reporting without doing any fact checking. Second, it's very likely that the reason that women are coming forward now is because "there is safety in numbers". This is probably the first time in 30+ years that there has been an environment that might listen to their claims. Look at it from their perspective (especially 20 or 30 years ago). Trump was "rich and powerful". He also had a clear record of destroying anyone that got in his way. There is no way that any claim of sexual harassment without a TON of irrefutable evidence would have been successful. But I bet that his response would have been successful. He would have destroyed any accuser. I don't fault someone for deciding to "live" with the event.

malchior wrote: Lou Dobb's is really, really sorry.

Yeah, I'm sorries I 'accidentally' intimidated the witnesses, Boss.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Kurth wrote:
Really??? What do you think the bulk of the 22,450 people working for Trump take home in a weekly paycheck? Should we be surprised that not more than a fraction of them have ponied up more than a $200 contribution to Trump's campaign? The comparison to contributions made to Romney by his Bain Capital and Bain & Company private equity colleagues is laughable.

Yeah, that struck me as silly. Those Bain guys have disposable income. Trump employees, no so much.

I'm not sure. Obviously I wouldn't expect the minimum wage employees to cough up anything, but he has to have a large number of middle managers and such working for him. If a boss I liked was running for something I respected, I would definitely consider coughing up a decent amount of bucks.

Shrug. I do find it odd that so few people who work for him are willing to give back to him. Whatever happened with Romney is irrelevant. Being gainfully employed is kind of a big deal. Being able to show your appreciation by donating a few dollars for your boss (of bosses) to become the president of the US would seem to be a no brainer. Assuming you're happy where you are of course.

Also, he only employs 22k people? What's he doing with his, what did he say? 10 billion dollars?

Just shower thoughts... the NRA has spent nearly twice as much on independent expenditures attempting to elect Trump in this presidential race as it did for Mitt Romney ($21 million vs $12 million). Yet, the RNC has spent $0 on ads and a total of $321,000 in independent expenditures on boosting Trump this year vs $40+ million on Romney. Things that make me go hmmm.

Edit for correction, it turns out RNC has spent $0 IEs on ads and a total of $321,000 IEs boosting Trump otherwise.

Retired nuclear launch officers warn against Trump:

"Only the president can order a nuclear launch. That order cannot be vetoed and once the
missiles have been launched, they cannot be called back. The consequences of
miscalculation, impulsive decision-making or poor judgment on the part of the president
could be catastrophic.

"The pressures the system places on that one person are staggering and require enormous
composure, judgment, restraint and diplomatic skill. Donald Trump does not have these
leadership qualities. On the contrary, he has shown himself time and again to be easily baited
and quick to lash out, dismissive of expert consultation and ill-informed of even basic
military and international affairs – including, most especially, nuclear weapons.

"Donald Trump should not be the nation’s commander-in-chief. He should not be entrusted
with the nuclear launch codes. He should not have his finger on the button."

Who's next? Former nuclear sub crew members?

Grifman wrote: Yeah, I've been thinking some about this after the revelations of the past week. Trump really doesn't build stuff any more, he's a licensing machine. He gets his name put on real estate projects and either gets an annual fee or a percentage of the deal. Then there are the Trump steaks, wine, etc.

So is anyone going to be interested in these deals after this? "Trump wine, so you can get her so drunk you can grab her ***** ", isn't really all that of a tag line after all.

Beautiful historic property...too bad it has Trump's name on it

Last weekend bankers and dignitaries from around the world descended on Washington for the annual World Bank–IMF meetings. But just a few days before the conference, rooms were not only still available at Trump International, they were heavily discounted. On October 2, a deluxe room, with a rack rate of $805, could be had for as low $445 a night on Hotels.com. All other five-star D.C. downtown hotels were sold out. By Wednesday, October 5, weekend stays in the deluxe rooms were marked down to $404 per night on Trump International’s own website. The more luxurious 500-square-foot executive rooms, with a city view and marble bath, were only $484. By comparison, at the Ritz-Carlton in Georgetown, the only available rooms were $1,139 per night, according to Hotels.com.

For a five-star hotel in downtown Washington to have vacancies during major IMF meetings is a little like having empty rooms when the Super Bowl is in town.

tgb wrote:tlr is from Philly and I've been there many times visiting her family.

They put Cheese-Whiz on their steak sandwiches in Philly.

Cheese-Whiz.

Anyone who is capable of that is capable of anything.

Yez heard about Hitchbot, right?

Still debating the particulars of my point. Let me try again.

Take the major social issue of the past few years, equality for the LBGT community (outside of NC anyway). Obviously that is a huge development for this country, and the timing was certainly helped by Obama. But the cultural shift was already underway, and the avalanche would have happened at some point (IMO).

Equally obvious, I am pleased that it didn't have to wait longer and that has actually directly impacted friends and family.

I work every day on an Army base, the impact of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not lost on me.

All I was attempting to convey was that the America that I remember back in 1990 under Bush I is the same American that I lived in through the Clinton, Bush II and Obama years. It's the same America that I would have lived in during the Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain or Romney years.

Identical? No. Better under some than others? Certainly. But fundamentally different? No.

The system just doesn't allow that much power to the President. A great deal of the changes we see also come about because of Congressional makeup, cultural movements, etc.

Clinton continues that America. Trump lights it all on fire.

TheMix wrote:Thanks for the response, Kurth. That makes me feel a little better.

But I'm not sure I agree with a couple of your points. First, from the NYT's letter/response, above, I don't think we should be assuming that the news is reporting without doing any fact checking. Second, it's very likely that the reason that women are coming forward now is because "there is safety in numbers". This is probably the first time in 30+ years that there has been an environment that might listen to their claims. Look at it from their perspective (especially 20 or 30 years ago). Trump was "rich and powerful". He also had a clear record of destroying anyone that got in his way. There is no way that any claim of sexual harassment without a TON of irrefutable evidence would have been successful. But I bet that his response would have been successful. He would have destroyed any accuser. I don't fault someone for deciding to "live" with the event.

He's not complaining about the NYT reporting. He's complaining about a reporter who said they knew an unnamed "someone" who told them about an encounter with Trump.

It felt like that was an example, but the net was being spread wide enough to catch everyone. He may not have meant it that way, but that's how it came across to me. It felt more like a dig at the "victim" (I'll use quotes to make everyone happy) than at the reporter.

This was awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugJ8TQh ... e=youtu.be

( Alt-Right commercial for White Noise CD. )

The Washington Post presents: The Closing Argument Against Donald Trump

On Nov. 8, Americans will elect the next president of the United States. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, is, as we have written, “uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament.” Below is just a sampling of his many erroneous, malicious and ignorant comments since he launched his campaign in June 2015, along with commentary from Post Opinions writers and The Post editorial board.

RunningMn9 wrote: The system just doesn't allow that much power to the President. A great deal of the changes we see also come about because of Congressional makeup, cultural movements, etc.

Some impact is not seen for years, if not decades after the President leaves office...because of lifetime Supreme Court appointments. Next president gets to pick one for sure, possibly 2 or 3. Having 3 more Scalias on the Supreme Court for the next couple generations would set America's social liberties and civil rights back a century.

RunningMn9 wrote: Clinton continues that America. Trump lights it all on fire.

No argument there