Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote:


I'm gunna order a Mazel Tov Cocktail the next time I go to a bar mitzvah.

ftfy.

Ok, I stole it from the comments. Still needed to be done.

How the Harry Reid Machine May Have Killed Trump's Chances:

Now, in virtually ensuring that Clinton has enough votes banked in early voting to take Nevada, Reid can ride off into the sunset knowing he has created perhaps the most fearsome political machine in history, one that will have delivered three successive victories to Democratic presidential nominees, saved himself in 2010 and probably filled his seat this cycle with his chosen successor. He might also have cemented Nevada’s bellwether status–only once in the last century (1976) has the state failed to vote for the eventual winner.

Yes, they still have to count the votes Tuesday. And I suppose a miracle could occur, all the data and history could be wrong and Trump could win Nevada.

But saying that almost certainly will not occur is not idle speculation, nor does it have anything to do with either campaign, even though Trump’s essentially is nonexistent here: It’s about math.

In short, everyone Hispanic.

Rip wrote:I'm sure that is what the Clintons tell themselves about Qatar giving homosexuals lashes and tossing them in jail as they extend their hands for that nice big check.

I'll just leave this here.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:I'm sure that is what the Clintons tell themselves about Qatar giving homosexuals lashes and tossing them in jail as they extend their hands for that nice big check.

I'll just leave this here.

"How much for the woman? Your woman. How much?"

Reporter tweets everything he discovered on Trump after six months of investigation (currently up to 64+ tweets)

Defiant wrote:Reporter tweets everything he discovered on Trump after six months of investigation (currently up to 64+ tweets)

Now at 89. Nothing terribly surprising or things that we haven't heard before.

I did find this tweet rather silly though, considering lots of what he's throwing out there is of the "I heard..." and "A friend said..." variety.

Skinypupy wrote:

Defiant wrote:Reporter tweets everything he discovered on Trump after six months of investigation (currently up to 64+ tweets)

Now at 89. Nothing terribly surprising or things that we haven't heard before.

I did find this tweet rather silly though, considering lots of what he's throwing out there is of the "I heard..." and "A friend said..." variety.

No, but it's a great and concise summary of who Trump is as a person. And I imagine that many of these would come as a surprise to many voters.

Skinypupy wrote:

Defiant wrote:Reporter tweets everything he discovered on Trump after six months of investigation (currently up to 64+ tweets)

Now at 89. Nothing terribly surprising or things that we haven't heard before.

I did find this tweet rather silly though, considering lots of what he's throwing out there is of the "I heard..." and "A friend said..." variety.

As I understand it, the tweets are a recap of the last 6 months of reporting that he's done for Newsweek, so there is likely more substance to be found in the articles than in the tweetstorm itself. That also explains why they aren't news to anyone that's been paying attention to Trump-related coverage.

A lot of those Eichenwald tweets are kind of embarrassing. Trump cheats at golf??? Not really what I'd call the results of a serious journalistic investigation.

Please let this end.

I'll see your 84 and raise you 92 more. Although that list is a month old, so the number is considerably higher.

Heh, such the paragon of moral consistency...

Kurth wrote:A lot of those Eichenwald tweets are kind of embarrassing. Trump cheats at golf??? Not really what I'd call the results of a serious journalistic investigation.

It's a data point among many others, and it just adds more weight to the whole.

Kurth wrote: Please let this end.

This election cycle has been surreal...looking forward to Wednesday morning.

Max Peck wrote:As I understand it, the tweets are a recap of the last 6 months of reporting that he's done for Newsweek, so there is likely more substance to be found in the articles than in the tweetstorm itself. That also explains why they aren't news to anyone that's been paying attention to Trump-related coverage.

Yes, Eichenwald's research is largely based on court records he uncovered while reporting for Newsweek. It is difficult to dispute lots of it, if you can at least accept the reliability of court records.

Of course, Trump's people don't (or won't).

But I think there's something about this "big list" of tweets -- 100+ entries and counting -- that's remarkably effective. Sure, they're already-published stories. But when recounting Trump's past behaviors on one huge list, I think that's the main point.

Trump (and his supporters) have been relentless in casting doubt each and every time a negative story like any of these has been reported by the press. They have been remarkably successful with this approach, in part because the response of journalists (and thoughtful people in comment sections everywhere) has been to dig deeper and present more evidence to "prove" each negative story is, in fact, true.

That defense doesn't work with Trump. Each new shred of evidence can be tossed aside with a new lie (or counter-accusation). But by piling story-upon-story into a list of tweets, Eichenwald shines a bright light on the sheer preponderance of negatives surrounding Trump. This "bigger picture" is something the mainstream press has NOT done a good of reporting on, most of the time. (They delve into the latest/greatest story; then move on to the next.)

IMHO, this list displays the larger context of how Donald J. Trump operates, and more importantly, illuminates the quality of person he clearly seems to be. It really is something to behold. Compared to Trump, Hillary is a rank amateur when it comes to this kind of stuff.

(Of course, I fully expect some Trump surrogate to begin tweeting their own list about Hillary Clinton -- assuming they can find enough convincing material to make such a copycat endeavor worthwhile at this late stage. Her resume of explicit negative stories is far, far shorter.)

Kurth wrote:A lot of those Eichenwald tweets are kind of embarrassing. Trump cheats at golf??? Not really what I'd call the results of a serious journalistic investigation.

Please let this end.

Meh. If you were writing a biography you'd probably leave that in. It may not be overly relevant for an election but it does give some insight into the person he is, especially if he's cheating while trying to hide it from his golf partners.

Trump campaign just filed the first election lawsuit, in Nevada. Who had the over/under for 10:15am Pacific time?

Lawsuit claims that early voting polls were improperly kept open for hours past closing time last Friday.

Defiant wrote:

Trust but verify......

That picture is unbelievably awesome. So awesome I initially thought it was doctored.

I don't even care if it's not what it appears to be. The fact that it exists is good enough.

Ok, wtf. Now the universe is just screwing with me.

To me, they both look more like they're cribbing the answers from their better halves.

Too easy!

Max Peck wrote:To me, they both look more like they're cribbing the answers from their better halves.

I agree, except in my case it looks like they are trying to figure out how to fill out a ballot.

So not so much needing help with the answer as needing help with the mechanics of doing so. Like they are in grade school or never voted before, or both.

I think this one is better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw

GreenGoo wrote:

Max Peck wrote:To me, they both look more like they're cribbing the answers from their better halves.

I agree, except in my case it looks like they are trying to figure out how to fill out a ballot.

So not so much needing help with the answer as needing help with the mechanics of doing so. Like they are in grade school or never voted before, or both.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking

gilraen wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Max Peck wrote:To me, they both look more like they're cribbing the answers from their better halves.

I agree, except in my case it looks like they are trying to figure out how to fill out a ballot.

So not so much needing help with the answer as needing help with the mechanics of doing so. Like they are in grade school or never voted before, or both.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking

I saw a tweet that said he was trying to see how to spell "X"

When I went out to retrieve this morning's newspaper, I noticed two Trump signs planted prominently on my lawn. Some joker had put them up overnight.

I brought them in and showed Wife, who was horrified. Who would do such a thing?

Easy: Her brother would. While he's not a Trump supporter, he is a lifelong Republican; he does not understand that (to us) a Trump sign is a hate symbol on a par with the confederate flag. We don't know for a fact yet that he was responsible, but it's consistent with his sense of humor.

Wife posted about it on that neighborhood web forum asking if anybody else had been attacked overnight. Nobody had, and two neighbors expressed relief that we are not, in fact, deplorables. Other neighbors undoubtedly saw the signs without seeing our explanation.

Kraken wrote:Wife posted about it on that neighborhood web forum asking if anybody else had been attacked overnight. Nobody had, and two neighbors expressed relief that we are not, in fact, deplorables. Other neighbors undoubtedly saw the signs without seeing our explanation.

I like how she refers to it as being "attacked".

Kraken wrote:Other neighbors undoubtedly saw the signs without seeing our explanation.

Suitably deface them and put them back out there. Make it clear.

Holman wrote:

Kraken wrote:Other neighbors undoubtedly saw the signs without seeing our explanation.

Suitably deface them and put them back out there. Make it clear.

The area has been slathered with Trump signs lately. Tons of 'Trump Digs Coal' signs, too. I'll be happy to see them all go.

Eric Trump may have broken law with ballot tweet
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/ ... index.html

LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!

RunningMn9 wrote:

Kraken wrote:Wife posted about it on that neighborhood web forum asking if anybody else had been attacked overnight. Nobody had, and two neighbors expressed relief that we are not, in fact, deplorables. Other neighbors undoubtedly saw the signs without seeing our explanation.

I like how she refers to it as being "attacked".

It was a microaggression against our safe space.

Holman wrote:

Kraken wrote:Other neighbors undoubtedly saw the signs without seeing our explanation.

Suitably deface them and put them back out there. Make it clear.

If it were earlier in the cycle I might do that. At this late date I just want Trump's name to sink back into reality tv land ASAP. The fact that the signs promptly disappeared, plus routine neighborhood chatter, should get the message across (or make it go away, as the case may be).

I was up and at the polls with my wife by 8am to vote.

I've got to admit I've not been very thoughtful or kept up with the issues which should be most important. I've found it difficult to seriously choose whom I want to be the next President of the United States - mainly because both candidates are liars; that the lies told by Hillary are on a much higher intellectual plane I fail to appreciate, because like I said, I'm not much at intellectualizing.

Since I don't see any moral ground for either candidate to appeal to me, I've found myself looking at the them through my "gamer goggles". I mean, I've spent a big chunk of my life making decisions on which game I want based on their sheer entertainment value. I live in an entertainment hungry society. And look at all the entertainment value Donald has initiated in just this one, lonely thread. So with this habit of soul, I voted for Donald Trump this morning so I could enjoy watching him. Hillary would have bored me to tears.

Dave Allen wrote:
Since I don't see any moral ground for either candidate to appeal to me, I've found myself looking at the them through my "gamer goggles". I mean, I've spent a big chunk of my life making decisions on which game I want based on their sheer entertainment value. I live in an entertainment hungry society. And look at all the entertainment value Donald has initiated in just this one, lonely thread. So with this habit of soul, I voted for Donald Trump this morning so I could enjoy watching him. Hillary would have bored me to tears.

Dave Allen wrote:Since I don't see any moral ground for either candidate to appeal to me, I've found myself looking at the them through my "gamer goggles". I mean, I've spent a big chunk of my life making decisions on which game I want based on their sheer entertainment value. I live in an entertainment hungry society. And look at all the entertainment value Donald has initiated in just this one, lonely thread. So with this habit of soul, I voted for Donald Trump this morning so I could enjoy watching him. Hillary would have bored me to tears.

Yeah, I'm really having a hard time reliably identifying satire with this election.

Entertainment only goes up to the point where it intersects with people's actual lives. What's Trump entertaining you now is Trump having a measurably negative effect on the lives of others. That's vastly less entertaining.

Someone getting a football to the groin on America's Funniest Home Videos is entertaining. Watching someone standing next to you get a football to the groin shouldn't be entertaining. Getting a football to the groin yourself is definitely not entertaining. In this case, you seem to have voted Trump in hopes of getting the first thing, but it's very likely you'll get the second or third.

Unless satire. In which case, it flew over my head.

Bill Belichick''s letter to Trump was the best example I've seen.

Edit...this was in response to milo.