Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

[Molinaro]

You know that the Trump campaign will simply point to that list as proof that the media is biased against them.

Trump himself probably even believes it.

Reminds me of a comment from a Trump supporter on another forum: It's obvious none of the polls are using random samples because they always end up with more Democratic supporters.

 

[SezMe]

And I'd specify actual "going after" them. Not merely "she said something bad about them."

For example, the one that gets the most play time is that she said that Monica Lewinsky was a loon. Said to a friend, who mentioned it in a book.

As if that is something to hold against her. Oooooo, Hillary said something not nice about the woman who had an affair with her husband! She's clearly an evil witch!

But this is actually something that people have brought up as an example of something that reflects badly on her character.

Personally, I'd think it would be worse if she didn't rag on Lewinsky.

Exactly so. I'm afraid that her being pissed at women who Slick did naughty time with puts her in the category of "normal human being".

 

[Polaris]

You know, kind of makes me wounder what 'The Donald's' secret service code name is...

"The Groper"

"Orange Fog"

"Sniffles"

"Lier McLier Face"

"DOA" (told to him as Don's Outrageously Awesome)

"Comb-over"

"Mussoteeny"

Moussolini.

 

[SezMe]

This rigging accusation is getting out of hand. It could actually see the RNC renounce him.

I wish. Of all the horrible stuff they've accepted, I see no reason to see this aspect as a bridge too far. Trump and he mouthholes have already given their explanations for why everyone is misreading Trump, which gives the GOP an excuse for inaction.

I don't see how any GOPer lives down the fact that they put party ahead of country. It's just disgusting.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Moussolini.

That would be Il Douche, please.

Donnie Sniffs*

A Cockwork Orange.

That horrible spoiled brat ratprick bastage with a dead ferret on his head.

SniffleGrabaPuss https://onsizzle.com/i/snifflegrabapuss-lol-2753483


* That's a tribute to my mis-spent yute. In Little Italy, the Guidos used to call the young Martin Scorsese "Marty Sniffs" becaue he had asthma and allergies and, well, was sniffing all the time. And... it's got to be said with a proper Guido Italian-New Yorker accent, please.

 

[SezMe]

Giuliani has gone full-bore, claiming cover-up of alleged rigging in 2012 that was found to be baseless. They're back to fraud being endemic in "inner-city" areas, as if voter suppression had never happened.

.... as if the inner cities are chock-a-block with Republicans voting in heretofore high unknown numbers.

 

[trustbutverify]

He is no going to do that. Trump would be denounced by everyone. If his brand wasn't already destroyed, it would be then.Trump may be crazy, but he's not going to go that far.

I'm not saying he's going to do that (order his useful idiots to break the windows of those who stole his title), I'm saying if he did it the GOP would deplore the statement, but maintain the connection. They're not willing to alienate the very worst of their ranks anymore than they already have.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Could it be that Rudy thinks he can inherit Trump's basket of deplorables for his 2020 run?

 

[trustbutverify]

I would, and not for any snide reason. Tensions seem pretty high on both sides of the divide, and "the left" does have its crazy people, even if they seem much fewer or less active.

I'm not sure. I wouldn't put it past him.

 

[Mumbles]

Could it be that Rudy thinks he can inherit Trump's basket of deplorables for his 2020 run?

A Rudy "No Altar Boy" Giuliani run in 2020 would be worth little more than amusement. I mean, he could scream and flail, but he'll never amount to anything again.

And that makes me happy.

ETA: When I said I was worried about a better politician that Trump inheriting his hateful base... Giuliani has no chance. The sun has set on him.

 

[SezMe]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-with-three-weeks-to-go/

Beyond the poling numbers, there's an interesting discussion by Nate in which he says something I just don't get, namely, that the number of undecided voters is much higher than at the same point in 2012. Huh?

One often hears the complaint that voting Dem or Rep is a matter of Tweedledee-ee of Tweedledum-dum. In most elections I don't think that's the case but acknowledge I could be wrong.

Not in 2016. The two candidates could not be more different. There can be no debate that the choice is clear; it's not a muddy mess.

So why is the number of undecideds so high? Are all these supposed undecideds just lying for some reason? Afraid to admit they're for Trump. Or for Clinton?

As far as I can tell, there's no great economic reason to confuse the election. There's no looming international crises about to explode. Terrorism is at its usual disgusting level. The weather's normal.

Why are there so many undecided voters now?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Could it be that Rudy thinks he can inherit Trump's basket of deplorables for his 2020 run?

Naaah, he's 72 already. Rudy's just trying to stay relevant. He had his moment in the son and is not willing to slip gracefully into retirement.

 

[SezMe]

All very reasonable, and I hope reason prevails. I just don't have much confidence. As I say, tragedy only requires one fool, one gun, and one bullet.

Damnit, Capel, you're making me start to worry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

So why is the number of undecideds so high? Are all these supposed undecideds just lying for some reason? Afraid to admit they're for Trump. Or for Clinton?

As far as I can tell, there's no great economic reason to confuse the election. There's no looming international crises about to explode. Terrorism is at its usual disgusting level. The weather's normal.

Why are there so many undecided voters now?

If I had to render a guess, they are torn between the lies they've been fed about Clinton for decades and the obvious unsuitability of Trump to be POTUS.

 

[dasmiller]

Beyond the poling numbers, there's an interesting discussion by Nate in which he says something I just don't get, namely, that the number of undecided voters is much higher than at the same point in 2012. Huh?

One often hears the complaint that voting Dem or Rep is a matter of Tweedledee-ee of Tweedledum-dum. In most elections I don't think that's the case but acknowledge I could be wrong.

Not in 2016. The two candidates could not be more different. There can be no debate that the choice is clear; it's not a muddy mess.

So why is the number of undecideds so high? Are all these supposed undecideds just lying for some reason? Afraid to admit they're for Trump. Or for Clinton?

As far as I can tell, there's no great economic reason to confuse the election. There's no looming international crises about to explode. Terrorism is at its usual disgusting level. The weather's normal.

Why are there so many undecided voters now?

It's a contest between two unpopular candidates. It's a lot easier to decide who you're against than who you're for, but the ballot doesn't have a "vote against" option.

A pity, that.

 

[SezMe]

The Santa Barbara Free Press recently endorsed Trump. So he's got one on his side.

And as Dasmiller pointed out, Trumpettes will claim it as proof that Hillary is a tool of the establishment.

Steve S

[nit picking] Santa Barbara News Press [/nit picking]

Also known locally as the News-Supress.

 

[SezMe]

Rudy has been stunningly whacked out since the Trump de-shackling. He's become a raving, drooling, hyper-conspiratorial, water-carrying nutjob.

Yep. Trump has brought a lot of vermin out of the woodpile and Rudy is Exhibit A.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's a contest between two unpopular candidates. It's a lot easier to decide who you're against than who you're for, but the ballot doesn't have a "vote against" option.

A pity, that.

Related to that, I think a portion of the "undecided" may still be deciding whether to vote or not.

 

[SezMe]

If I had to render a guess, they are torn between the lies they've been fed about Clinton for decades and the obvious unsuitability of Trump to be POTUS.

It's a contest between two unpopular candidates. It's a lot easier to decide who you're against than who you're for, but the ballot doesn't have a "vote against" option.

You've basically said the same thing and it sounds plausible. I'll go with it. Thanks.

 

[Ladewig]

This rigging accusation is getting out of hand. It could actually see the RNC renounce him.

What is your reasoning?
The Republicans have been claiming for over a decade that voter fraud is so common that measures must be put in place to reduce it. Why would Trump's claims of election rigging be over-the-top in some way?