Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[JoeB]

They tracked down some more donations the Trump foundation actually made.

10K to Jenny McCarthy's Anti-Vax Org.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ve-to-jenny-mccarthy-s-anti-vaxx-crusade.html

 

[Puppycow]

They tracked down some more donations the Trump foundation actually made.

10K to Jenny McCarthy's Anti-Vax Org.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ve-to-jenny-mccarthy-s-anti-vaxx-crusade.html

Not surprising given that he has publicly blamed vaccines for autism before.

God help us if he wins.

 

[Craig4]

Not surprising given that he has publicly blamed vaccines for autism before.

God help us if he wins.

I doubt very much that he will. What concerns me is that it's going to be close. This election needs to be a repudiation of Trump. While we may get a landslide in the electoral college, it could be a close popular vote. The world should see us rejecting him outright.

It will be interesting to see what happens with his business. Licensing his name will never be the same for him. Most of his supporters can't afford the hotels and products that use his name. He may have to "Walmart" his brand to appeal to people left who would want to be associated with him. Maybe Trump boxed wine or Trump burgers instead of steaks.

 

[newyorkguy]

God help us if he wins.

Amen to that.

 

[Darat]

I know it's a parody. it's an obvious parody.....and yet it's no more stupid than what he has already done.

This is one of the problems with Trump there is so much proven "dirt" on him that one more act of idiocy doesn't really make him any dirtier.

 

[JoeB]

This is one of the problems with Trump there is so much proven "dirt" on him that one more act of idiocy doesn't really make him any dirtier.

Though his inability to keep rolling in the dirt should hurt him some among people that may vote but haven't been paying close attention when the election was far off (no idea how big that segment is).

 

[Bob001]

I doubt very much that he will. What concerns me is that it's going to be close. This election needs to be a repudiation of Trump. While we may get a landslide in the electoral college, it could be a close popular vote. The world should see us rejecting him outright.
....

What's more worrisome is that Trump is encouraging his acolytes to believe that if he loses, the election was rigged. It's hard to believe they'll accept it quietly -- or peacefully.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...ion-will-be-rigged-poll-shows/article/2603364
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/the-truth-behind-trumps-rigged-election-paranoia

 

[CapelDodger]

What's more worrisome is that Trump is encouraging his acolytes to believe that if he loses, the election was rigged. It's hard to believe they'll accept it quietly -- or peacefully.

Certainly not all of them, and not even all of the 2nd Amendment folks amongst them.

The other side to never having seen someone like Trump win a presidential election is never to have seen someone like him lose one.

 

[Stacko]

Donald negotiated for and attempted to get second wife Marla Maples to pose for Playboy. She refused.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-pressured-second-wife-to-pose-nude-for-playboy

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Puppycow]

This is one of the problems with Trump there is so much proven "dirt" on him that one more act of idiocy doesn't really make him any dirtier.

Though his inability to keep rolling in the dirt should hurt him some among people that may vote but haven't been paying close attention when the election was far off (no idea how big that segment is).

I think you'd have to be living in a cave to have not heard at least some of the dirt about Trump. Anyone who is even considering voting must have already factored it in. The polls don't appear to be changing dramatically since the debate. If there is a change it's probably within the typical margin of error for these polls.

 

[Puppycow]

This analysis from Josh Marshall is worth a read:

Caught in Trump's Cycle of Rage and Abuse

“She’s nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be."

That's the takeaway quote from a disturbing article in the Times out tonight, describing an agitated, febrile Donald Trump, off the high of his overnight Twitter rampage but settled into a steady rage over a week of humiliations and electoral reverses. Trump's biggest liability and weakness through his eighteen months as a politician has been his inability to focus or rule his emotions. He goes off on jags in which he seems to forget what he's at least notionally trying to do: win an election. In the quotation above, his rage against Clinton and Alicia Machado appears to have deluded him into believing that the election is a contest to see who can be the bigger monster. There is little basis to believe that this is how most voters judge the race.

I mentioned a few days ago that the problem with Trump's swaggering claim that he had had pity on Chelsea Clinton or let Clinton off easy in debate #1 was that he was setting up a dynamic in which he'd look like a fool if he didn't go full bore crazy on Clinton in the second debate. Partly that's a problem because 'townhall' debates are notoriously unforgiving to whichever candidate chooses to go negative. More to the point, Trump's biggest electoral weakness is the widespread belief that he lacks the temperament and emotional stability to be president. Public tirades may provide psychic satisfaction but they only drive home why people think he's not fit for the job.

There is no longer any doubt that Trump is going to be Trump. He cannot "pivot" at least pretend to be a more benign and serious politician with a focus on issues.

Marshall's take is that bringing up Bill's past to attack Hillary won't appeal to women.

As I noted over the weekend, what seems blindingly obvious is that for a boorish aggressor like Trump to raise Bill Clinton's infidelities against Hillary Clinton seems wildly more likely to repulse female voters against Trump than against Clinton. Yes, there are these baroque arguments which purport to show why Hillary Clinton is the true villain of her husband's infidelities and which leverage faux feminist arguments to brand her a hypocrite. But these are no more than a patch work mask pasted over something more stark and primal: they are meant to shame Clinton sexually, humiliate her publicly and brand her as weak and contemptible. In any case, what attacks are 'about' is seldom up to the attacker. The audience decides that.

Read the rest of it.

 

[Puppycow]

Nigel Farage to help Trump prepare for the nest debate:

Farage Makes Emergency Visit to US for Trump Debate Prep

 

[Meadmaker]

This analysis from Josh Marshall is worth a read:

Caught in Trump's Cycle of Rage and Abuse



There is no longer any doubt that Trump is going to be Trump. He cannot "pivot" at least pretend to be a more benign and serious politician with a focus on issues.

Marshall's take is that bringing up Bill's past to attack Hillary won't appeal to women.



Read the rest of it.

And yet, it's a safe bet he's going to do it anyway, if only to reprise the "I could do it but I won't" pattern, which is really just an "I am doing it right now, but I won't admit it."



It occurs to me, though, that it seems likely there will come a point where he looks at the polls and sees no chance of winning. At that point, what will he do? I'm guessing he'll go full bore crazy negative on her, throwing out everything and the kitchen sink. It should be entertaining to watch, especially the GOP reaction.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It occurs to me, though, that it seems likely there will come a point where he looks at the polls and sees no chance of winning. At that point, what will he do?

Possibly relax.

I think he went into this as a kind of lark, and it got out of hand.

I still think in the final analysis he may not really want to be president, and is either consciously or subconsciously undermining the whole enterprise.

 

[Tony Stark]

Donald thinks it is appropriate to bring up Bill's infidelity, lies about his own, and doesn't think he needs to prepare more the next debate because half of his thought process was focused on the mic. It is going to be glorious.

But when asked if he had ever cheated on his wives, Mr. Trump said: “No — I never discuss it. I never discuss it. It was never a problem.”

Asked specifically about his affair with Ms. Maples when he was married to Ivana Trump, Mr. Trump said: “I don’t talk about it. I wasn’t president of the United States. I don’t talk about it. When you think of the fact that he was impeached, the country was in turmoil, turmoil, absolute turmoil. He lied with Monica Lewinsky and paid a massive penalty.”
...
Mr. Trump said he did not think he needed to prepare more rigorously for the next debate than he did for the first one, because any shortcomings on Monday, he argued, were because of a problem with the microphone at his lectern, which he “spent 50 percent of my thought process” dealing with. The Commission on Presidential Debates, which sponsors the events, said on Friday that there were “issues” with Mr. Trump’s audio.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-interview-bill-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

 

[steve s]

Read the rest of it.

From the article...

"Trump and his advisors are now convinced that Bill Clinton's numerous infidelities are the Sword of Damocles they have hanging over Hillary Clinton, the ultimate boom to lower on all her electoral aspirations."


Wha...?!

Trump seems to have created a fantasy reality for himself where he thinks he's perfect and pure. I hope he does go this route just so we can see the retaliatory barrage of mud that will bury Trump in a mountain of his own filth.

Steve S

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What a sorry little man.

 

[CapelDodger]

From the article...

"Trump and his advisors are now convinced that Bill Clinton's numerous infidelities are the Sword of Damocles they have hanging over Hillary Clinton, the ultimate boom to lower on all her electoral aspirations."


Wha...?!

If they could lower a boom they would. So yeah, wtf?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I don't think what Bill did or did not do has any bearing at all on Hillary.

What bothers some people is the allegations that she was part of a concerted and organized effort to go after Bill's paramours.

If Trump and his people can succeed in making Juanita Broaddick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Jennifer Flowers, and others look like victims, and that Hillary took part in schemes to demean and attack them, that is the angle that may make some reconsider Hillary's character. It may make some of those who view Hillary as a champion of women think twice.

Such a tactic might or might not gain traction. It might backfire totally. It would probably work best if it focused on Hillary's part in these affairs and their aftermaths.

I have a feeling we're going to find out!

 

[NoahFence]

I don't think what Bill did or did not do has any bearing at all on Hillary.

What bothers some people is the allegations that she was part of a concerted and organized effort to go after Bill's paramours.

A woman got a chance to lower the boom on women who slept with her husband?

That's kind of normal isn't it?