|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 14 2016 00:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 23:57 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 13 2016 23:10 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 23:02 Nevuk wrote:![[image loading]](http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Cuo1iLpUsAUIYRn.jpg-large.jpeg) I am looking forward to the “Come at me bro” response from the Times. Remember when papers reported on Bill Clinton’s problem with women. Remember when he threatened to sue them in an effort to silence them. Remember when Fox News had endless talking heads demanding Obama provide his birth certificate and Obama threatened to sue them. Yeah…. This doesn't look like a lawsuit, it looks more like complaining under a letterhead. But hey, when your client is paying you a few hundred bucks an hour you don't question him too much. It is the first phase of a lawsuit. First Trump needs to challenge the claim, demand Times remove them and give the Times a reasonable period of time to do so. Then he files. Of course, that means he can be compelled to testify and have to respond to every single claim made against him back to his first marriage and before. And his family as well.
I know. I highly doubt that Trump is actually interested in going down the lawsuit path because it opens him up to all sorts of fun things in discovery and on. Getting his lawyers to send the letter is just an expensive and faux-official way of making a complaint. Trump's all talk no walk here.
|
On October 14 2016 00:43 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 00:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 00:30 Logo wrote:On October 14 2016 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:So, on a politics note, Trump is pulling out of all states but North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Here's the problem with that. The last three polls in Pennsylvania put Trump 9 points behind, 10 points behind and 11 points behind. 538 put his chances of winning Pennsylvania at this point outside of the margin of error. Polling is an inaccurate science but it wouldn't just take inaccurate polling at this point, it'd take a completely unexpected outside factor. Incidentally Clinton is outspending Trump in Pennsylvania 20:1. I wrote previously about how if we assume that he doesn't win Pennsylvania, an assumption I'm sticking with, he needs to win all the red states and Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida. He's currently losing hard in Nevada (and added Arizona to the list, despite it previously being pretty solidly red). This is essentially an allin bet on Pennsylvania from what I can see. If he flips it that's 20 electoral college votes. If he loses all three of the competitive states he's no longer ahead in, Iowa, Nevada and now Arizona, that's 21 electoral college votes. + Show Spoiler [electoral math] +Texas - 38 - Total so far 38 Georgia - 16 - 54 Indiana - 11 - 65 Tennessee - 11 - 76 Missouri - 10 - 86 South Carolina - 9 - 95 Alabama - 9 - 104 Kentucky - 8 - 112 Louisiana - 8 - 120 Oklahoma - 7 - 127 Arkansas - 6 - 133 Utah - 6 - 139 Kansas - 6 - 145 Mississippi - 6 - 151 West Virginia - 5 - 156 Nebraska - 5 - 161 Idaho - 4 - 165 Montana - 3 - 168 Wyoming - 3 - 171 North Dakota - 3 - 174 South Dakota - 3 - 177 Alaska - 3 - 180 That means he has to get 90 more from the following pool Florida - 29 Pennsylvania - 20 Ohio - 18 North Carolina - 15 Arizona - 11 Nevada - 6 Iowa - 6 Maine - 1 (1 competitive electoral college vote) Even if he wins Pennsylvania, which he won't, it doesn't matter unless the other swing states he's no longer campaigning in win themselves. + Show Spoiler [best case scenario for Trump, 6/6 comp…] +http://www.270towin.com/maps/W3Krg Conclusion in case anyone didn't bother to read. If we give Trump all 6 of the competitive states he wants, even though he's behind in all 6 of them today, and we give him the Maine vote, he'll get 266 electoral college votes. To win at this point he'd also have to flip a Clinton safe state, like New Hampshire. Trump needs to win 7 out of 6 competitive races to win the Presidency. I think its pretty obvious from this that Trump simply doesnt not have the resources. He shouldn't have to focus so heavily on 1 state. To win he would have to be able to fight hard in every single battleground state. The fact that he can't appears to be obvious. I guess the well of people willing to fund Trump has dried up a while ago. Do we even have good records on Trump's campaign spending? Like it that something people have parsed. I still find Trump's spending habits oddly bizarre (i.e. having only a single field office in Florida) and would really be curious where the money is going. Well, a lot of it went to his own businesses to pay them for hosting campaign events. Yeah this is all I've heard about it so far. I'm just really curious if he's made money, or at least spent money in a way that benefits him in excess of his personal cost. Also in terms of reputation and stuff... I mean that's probably a problem for his kids, but at 70 years old so long he probably doesn't really need to care that much so long as his net worth stays in reasonable shape.
People like him don't only live for money. He's a egomaniac and the thing of his life has been to be associated with success with winning, with being admired or feared. To end his life being remembered as a clown who sank a party in a bizarre and grotesque campaign and LOST an unlosable election, is basically one of the worst scenarios for him.
|
United States43746 Posts
Given he was running on a platform of lowering his own taxes, ending the inheritance tax his kids would have to pay and allowing him to realize his deferred corporate profits at a lower rate it was probably plus EV for him to burn $100m running, even if he only ever had a 10% chance. I think if we knew then what we know now about how much awful he had waiting to come out we'd never have given him a 10% chance but presumably he didn't do full disclosure when he asked strategists to help him plan his campaign.
|
On October 14 2016 00:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Okay....
I will assume he has no clue why the US intervened or what they intervened into.
|
|
|
Not even the man who wants us to ask Sean Hannity wants to talk to Sean Hannity
|
I feel like there is simply no positive spin here. "So tell me about how you're suing a newspaper and why they are so awful". Even that makes Trump sound bad. He's in such an unwinnable position right now.
|
On October 14 2016 00:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 00:43 Logo wrote:On October 14 2016 00:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 00:30 Logo wrote:On October 14 2016 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2016 23:58 KwarK wrote:So, on a politics note, Trump is pulling out of all states but North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Here's the problem with that. The last three polls in Pennsylvania put Trump 9 points behind, 10 points behind and 11 points behind. 538 put his chances of winning Pennsylvania at this point outside of the margin of error. Polling is an inaccurate science but it wouldn't just take inaccurate polling at this point, it'd take a completely unexpected outside factor. Incidentally Clinton is outspending Trump in Pennsylvania 20:1. I wrote previously about how if we assume that he doesn't win Pennsylvania, an assumption I'm sticking with, he needs to win all the red states and Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida. He's currently losing hard in Nevada (and added Arizona to the list, despite it previously being pretty solidly red). This is essentially an allin bet on Pennsylvania from what I can see. If he flips it that's 20 electoral college votes. If he loses all three of the competitive states he's no longer ahead in, Iowa, Nevada and now Arizona, that's 21 electoral college votes. + Show Spoiler [electoral math] +Texas - 38 - Total so far 38 Georgia - 16 - 54 Indiana - 11 - 65 Tennessee - 11 - 76 Missouri - 10 - 86 South Carolina - 9 - 95 Alabama - 9 - 104 Kentucky - 8 - 112 Louisiana - 8 - 120 Oklahoma - 7 - 127 Arkansas - 6 - 133 Utah - 6 - 139 Kansas - 6 - 145 Mississippi - 6 - 151 West Virginia - 5 - 156 Nebraska - 5 - 161 Idaho - 4 - 165 Montana - 3 - 168 Wyoming - 3 - 171 North Dakota - 3 - 174 South Dakota - 3 - 177 Alaska - 3 - 180 That means he has to get 90 more from the following pool Florida - 29 Pennsylvania - 20 Ohio - 18 North Carolina - 15 Arizona - 11 Nevada - 6 Iowa - 6 Maine - 1 (1 competitive electoral college vote) Even if he wins Pennsylvania, which he won't, it doesn't matter unless the other swing states he's no longer campaigning in win themselves. + Show Spoiler [best case scenario for Trump, 6/6 comp…] +http://www.270towin.com/maps/W3Krg Conclusion in case anyone didn't bother to read. If we give Trump all 6 of the competitive states he wants, even though he's behind in all 6 of them today, and we give him the Maine vote, he'll get 266 electoral college votes. To win at this point he'd also have to flip a Clinton safe state, like New Hampshire. Trump needs to win 7 out of 6 competitive races to win the Presidency. I think its pretty obvious from this that Trump simply doesnt not have the resources. He shouldn't have to focus so heavily on 1 state. To win he would have to be able to fight hard in every single battleground state. The fact that he can't appears to be obvious. I guess the well of people willing to fund Trump has dried up a while ago. Do we even have good records on Trump's campaign spending? Like it that something people have parsed. I still find Trump's spending habits oddly bizarre (i.e. having only a single field office in Florida) and would really be curious where the money is going. Well, a lot of it went to his own businesses to pay them for hosting campaign events. Yeah this is all I've heard about it so far. I'm just really curious if he's made money, or at least spent money in a way that benefits him in excess of his personal cost. Also in terms of reputation and stuff... I mean that's probably a problem for his kids, but at 70 years old so long he probably doesn't really need to care that much so long as his net worth stays in reasonable shape. Trump doesn't strike me as the kind of person to hang up his coat and enjoy a relaxed and (comparatively) modest lifestyle while living off his wealth's interest.
I guess the direction I'm going with this is that he's at a point where he in unchained to use his words.. He probably doesn't need to hold back for business purposes as much anymore where he may have felt inclined to do so before (anticipating he would have a declining role over his businesses in the next decade regardless of the current situation). So even if his reputation is tainted and ruined he can just keep going on with and still probably keep the same fervent following that's been dogging him the whole election. Like he can keep 'winning' even with a mud soaked reputation just by surrounding himself with people that agree with him and shouting as loudly as he can.
Though that may be an optimistic assumption by me, there's a lot of old men who just won't let go and step down even though I'm eagerly awaiting when they do (screw you Murdoch for holding on for so long).
|
Does anyone think it is possible Trump is showing early signs of some sort of psychological degradation? Extremely mild dementia or something? I am expecting something of that nature to come out in the next couple years. It doesn't even feel like he's trying to be president anymore.
|
On October 14 2016 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone think it is possible Trump is showing early signs of some sort of psychological degradation? Extremely mild dementia or something? I am expecting something of that nature to come out in the next couple years. It doesn't even feel like he's trying to be president anymore.
As an armchair psychologist, I'm pretty sure Trump has had some form of borderline personality or sociopathic disorder his entire life.
|
Let's not do this shit again.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone think it is possible Trump is showing early signs of some sort of psychological degradation? Extremely mild dementia or something? I am expecting something of that nature to come out in the next couple years. It doesn't even feel like he's trying to be president anymore.
Lets not do these kind of psycological exam, nothing good will come out of it.
|
Pssh, fine. Here's something interesting yet unsurprising.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump rebuffed political aides’ requests to research his past, people familiar with the matter said, a decision that contributed to his campaign being caught unprepared for the past week’s barrage of claims he mistreated women.
Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, requested that Trump submit himself to a forensic evaluation that is traditional for any public figure seeking office, according to people granted anonymity to speak freely about the campaign’s start-up days last year. Opposition research would allow Trump’s new political team to prepare for potential attacks on his candidacy.
Paul Manafort and his team made a similar request when they took over the reins after Lewandowski, who was ousted this June.
Trump declined, the people said, and the issue became a point of contention among his closest political advisers and some long-time employees at the Trump Organization. Trump spokespeople Jason Miller and Hope Hicks didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Now, Trump is fighting an onslaught of scrutiny of his behavior toward women, less than one month before voters cast final judgment on him and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Some of the scrutiny is a result of Trump’s own words, including in a 2005 video that surfaced Friday where he bragged about being able to do “anything” to women because of his fame.
Both the New York Times and People magazine reported fresh allegations Wednesday from women who say Trump touched them inappropriately, without their consent. The candidate has flatly denied all accusations, tweeting that the incidents never happened.
Trump Said to Block Campaign’s Requests to Do Self-Opposition Research
|
The Republican National Committee insists that it’s doing everything in its power to elect Donald Trump, but as Trump gets clobbered on the TV airwaves by his well-funded Democratic rival, the RNC has been conspicuously absent.
A POLITICO analysis of campaign finance records reveals that the committee has not spent anything on commercials boosting Trump since he emerged as the party’s likely nominee.
That’s a stark departure from recent elections. In 2008 and 2012, the RNC spent tens of millions of dollars on so-called independent expenditures — principally TV ads, but also direct mail and phone banks — supporting its nominees or attacking their Democratic rivals.
The lack of air cover has prompted grumbling from Trump aides and allies, many of whom believe that the RNC was never fully supportive of their candidate and that it’s now turning its back completely on the anti-establishment nominee as his poll numbers crater.
“The Democrats have an unprecedented and lopsided advertising advantage in this race like we have never seen before, and it is having a serious and negative effect,” said Curt Anderson, a former RNC political director who is helping a pro-Trump super PAC, Rebuilding America Now. “It is possible that Trump has sealed his fate at this point, but it is still a terrible mistake not to have $50 million of advertising from the Republican Party exposing Hillary Clinton and keeping her numbers down,” said Anderson, who helped to lead the RNC’s independent expenditure effort in 2004 and 2008.
In 2004, the committee spent $18.2 million on independent expenditures — or IEs, in campaign parlance — boosting George W. Bush’s reelection bid. In 2008, the RNC’s IE spending surged to $53.5 million in support of John McCain’s campaign against Barack Obama. And in 2012, the RNC spent $42.4 million on IEs boosting Mitt Romney or opposing President Obama — with nearly 80 percent of the spending occurring before mid-October.
By contrast, this cycle the RNC has spent only $321,000 on independent expenditures attacking Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. And all of that spending occurred last fall — before Trump had emerged as the leader for the GOP presidential nomination.
RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh said the committee is not going to spend any more money this cycle on television ad IEs, but that the decision is completely unrelated to Trump.
Rather, she said, it stems from a strategic calculation made soon after the 2012 election that “that is not an efficient use of party committee dollars to spend money on television.” Pointing to a report that assessed the shortcomings of Republican efforts in the 2012 election, she said RNC leaders determined that the party’s money was better invested in data-driven voter contact operations.
“We put people on the ground for three years, invested in communities, doing data and voter registration, so that when we had a nominee, we would be able to link up with that nominee and work together to iinsure that the nominee had the best field program that the Republican nominee has ever had,” said Walsh.
Campaigns and super PACs are both better suited to funding ads, she argued.
Source
|
Not a trump voter, but really surprised at how many people are taking these girls suddenly coming out of the woodwork at face value while eye rolling at the Bill Clinton accusations.
Be real, Hilary is just getting down to trumps level in the pig shit wars
|
On October 14 2016 01:37 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not a trump voter, but really surprised at how many people are taking these girls suddenly coming out of the woodwork at face value while eye rolling at the Bill Clinton accusations.
Be real, Hilary is just getting down to trumps level in the pig shit wars
I think people believe both. Also keep in mind Trump's own words in the recent tapes.
|
United States43746 Posts
I think the Bill accusers are credible. No part of the Bill being a sexual predator story seems implausible to me. On the other hand, we don't have Bill testifying that he definitely did it the way that we do have from Trump. Also Bill isn't running.
|
On October 14 2016 01:37 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not a trump voter, but really surprised at how many people are taking these girls suddenly coming out of the woodwork at face value while eye rolling at the Bill Clinton accusations.
Be real, Hilary is just getting down to trumps level in the pig shit wars
Because we have Trump on tape bragging about it?
Seems rather obvious to me.
|
On October 14 2016 01:37 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not a trump voter, but really surprised at how many people are taking these girls suddenly coming out of the woodwork at face value while eye rolling at the Bill Clinton accusations.
Be real, Hilary is just getting down to trumps level in the pig shit wars
There is no indication that Hillary's campaign has anything to do with these women coming out of the woodwork. And among the Hillary voters I know, reluctant folks included, no one thinks Bill innocent relative to his tawdry past. However, most recognize that his prior acts weigh differently on the race than Trump's do given that the latter is an actual candidate.
|
Apparently Michelle Obama is giving some sort of speech on sexual assault while at a pool? Is anyone seeing this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
