I was right: President Elect Trump

[djAdvocate]

Pris for President

[tallguy]

Don't know about that.  I may have had another position in mind for her.  

[djAdvocate]

Sept 7, 2016 20:07:08 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Don't know about that.  I may have had another position in mind for her.  

i am glad i am not the only one.

[Opti]

And back to politics...

www.rawstory.com/2016/09/elizabeth-warren-slams-right-wing-health-conspiracies-have-they-looked-at-donald-trump/

Conservatives flew off the handle Monday afternoon when Clinton coughed several times during an Ohio rally with VP nominee Tim Kaine. They’ve alleged everything from CTE, to Parkinson’s Disease, to epilepsy, however, none of those illnesses involve a lot of coughing.

According to the Boston Herald, Warren said that Trump doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in criticizing Clinton if he isn’t willing to be transparent in his own campaign. “Right now we need a lot more information from Donald Trump. We need a lot more transparency,” she said, specifically citing Trump’s tax returns and questionable medical records.

Trump has disclosed very little information about his own health, other than the fact that he consumes large amounts of fast food and got a doctor’s note that many physicians have criticized.

[Opti]

Sept 7, 2016 23:15:22 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Sept 7, 2016 20:21:11 GMT -5 Opti said:

And back to politics...

www.rawstory.com/2016/09/elizabeth-warren-slams-right-wing-health-conspiracies-have-they-looked-at-donald-trump/

Conservatives flew off the handle Monday afternoon when Clinton coughed several times during an Ohio rally with VP nominee Tim Kaine. They’ve alleged everything from CTE, to Parkinson’s Disease, to epilepsy, however, none of those illnesses involve a lot of coughing.

According to the Boston Herald, Warren said that Trump doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in criticizing Clinton if he isn’t willing to be transparent in his own campaign. “Right now we need a lot more information from Donald Trump. We need a lot more transparency,” she said, specifically citing Trump’s tax returns and questionable medical records.

Trump has disclosed very little information about his own health, other than the fact that he consumes large amounts of fast food and got a doctor’s note that many physicians have criticized.

Wait...she's STILL coughing  ??

You think the Ohio rally is still going on?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 7, 2016 23:15:22 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Sept 7, 2016 20:21:11 GMT -5 Opti said:

And back to politics...

www.rawstory.com/2016/09/elizabeth-warren-slams-right-wing-health-conspiracies-have-they-looked-at-donald-trump/

Conservatives flew off the handle Monday afternoon when Clinton coughed several times during an Ohio rally with VP nominee Tim Kaine. They’ve alleged everything from CTE, to Parkinson’s Disease, to epilepsy, however, none of those illnesses involve a lot of coughing.

According to the Boston Herald, Warren said that Trump doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in criticizing Clinton if he isn’t willing to be transparent in his own campaign. “Right now we need a lot more information from Donald Trump. We need a lot more transparency,” she said, specifically citing Trump’s tax returns and questionable medical records.

Trump has disclosed very little information about his own health, other than the fact that he consumes large amounts of fast food and got a doctor’s note that many physicians have criticized.

Wait...she's STILL coughing  ??

not familiar with allergies, i take it?

[OldCoyote]

Sept 7, 2016 10:44:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 7, 2016 10:21:02 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

They screwed up horrendously by not involving themselves originally, and cannot easily make up for that error now.

What??  ACA is 100% owned by the Democrats, They had all the votes they needed to past "anything they wanted"

false.  the Blue Dog Democrats sided with the GOP on "the public option".  if you don't remember that, i suggest that you look it up.

Set me straight here dj,   Did 100% of the Democrats vote for this?

100% of the Republicans did not vote for this.

[OldCoyote]

Sept 7, 2016 12:00:53 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 7, 2016 10:21:02 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

They screwed up horrendously by not involving themselves originally, and cannot easily make up for that error now.

What??  ACA is 100% owned by the Democrats, They had all the votes they needed to past "anything they wanted"

Every time the Republican made any suggestion, it was shot down..  Remember how arrogant Obama was?

So now when this Yuge steaming pile of horse crap called Obamacare, that you had to pass it to to find out what was in it, 2900 pages long,

now collapsing under it's own weight!

It is some how the Republicans fault!!!!!

The bill had to add and remove so much stuff to finally get past the GOP (and the big insurance companies) that the final frankenbill was just a 'first stab.' Of course there are issues with it.

We can try for a 'second stab' to improve it or we can scrap the whole thing and go back to the sorry ass state of affairs we had prior to the ACA.

They didn't have to do anything to please the GOP,  they had all the votes they needed with out any vote from any Republican!!

The own this 100%.

 In Pima County AZ,    the only Insurer left is Blue Cross,   They announced that rates next year are going up a minimum of 51%!!!!

[djAdvocate]

Sept 8, 2016 10:01:07 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Sept 7, 2016 10:44:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

false.  the Blue Dog Democrats sided with the GOP on "the public option".  if you don't remember that, i suggest that you look it up.

Set me straight here dj,   Did 100% of the Democrats vote for this?

100% of the Republicans did not vote for this.

yes.  but not all of them got what they wanted.  my congresswoman was one of them, so i know this issue VERY well.

your claim that "Democrats could get anything they wanted" is A LIE, oc.  the liberals in the party COULD NOT GET the public option past the Blue Dogs.

stop making the claim that they could get "anything they wanted".  they could BARELY get what they got, and only because one of the Democrats that was filibustering it went home for Christmas.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 8, 2016 10:32:05 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Sept 7, 2016 12:00:53 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

The bill had to add and remove so much stuff to finally get past the GOP (and the big insurance companies) that the final frankenbill was just a 'first stab.' Of course there are issues with it.

We can try for a 'second stab' to improve it or we can scrap the whole thing and go back to the sorry ass state of affairs we had prior to the ACA.

They didn't have to do anything to please the GOP,  they had all the votes they needed with out any vote from any Republican!!

you're right- but they had to make concessions to conservatives IN THEIR OWN PARTY.  but they were also courting Susan Collins of Maine.

don't you remember any of this?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 7, 2016 15:32:08 GMT -5 Opti said:

that Trump is funding one of the major 'reputable' polls

Since I didn't make the assertion he is funding one of the major polls ... nothing to do.

Post evidence Trump is funding ANY poll. Thanks. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 8, 2016 12:23:42 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 7, 2016 15:32:08 GMT -5 Opti said:

Since I didn't make the assertion he is funding one of the major polls ... nothing to do.

Post evidence Trump is funding ANY poll. Thanks. 

does it count if one of his campaign team funds it, or does Trump have to fund it directly?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Trump delivered the single most substantive foreign policy and national defense addresses I've seen since I was old enough to vote. It's surprisingly rock solid, chock full of specifics, and like all substantive, detailed proposals made by Republicans, it will be promptly ignored:

[djAdvocate]

you must be younger than i thought.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Example #254,418 why polling news is just, well- silly

theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/07/example-254418-why-polling-news-is-just-well-silly/

No, we are not going to reverse course and start deconstructing the insufferable media polling. We are committed to continuing to ignore the nonsense, the ‘shiny thing’ chatter.



However, every once in a while an example surfaces where we can explain that decision using a current case in point. Cue today’s PPP Florida poll:



(Via PPP) […] PPP’s newest Florida poll finds a very tight race for President in the state. In the full field Donald Trump gets 44% to 43% for Hillary Clinton, with Gary Johnson at 5%, and Jill Stein and Evan McMullin each at 1%. But in a head to head between Clinton and Trump, the nominal lead flips to Clinton at 47/46. That’s because voters who support one of the minor candidates or are undecided in the full field pick Clinton by 12 points over Trump if they had to choose just between the two major candidates. (link)



OMG… “tight race“. Oooooo,…. Ahhhhh,….. etc.

However, look at this first:


And this: 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 8, 2016 12:34:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you must be younger than i thought.

45 stb 46

[djAdvocate]

Sept 8, 2016 12:36:43 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 8, 2016 12:34:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you must be younger than i thought.

45 stb 46

didn't think much of Reagan, i am gathering?

[Opti]

Sept 8, 2016 0:23:04 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Sept 8, 2016 0:00:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

You think the Ohio rally is still going on?

Oh sorry...I didn't realize what you posted was so irrelevant!

For what it's worth I was making fun of the coughing stuff....a joke if you will...I forgot everything on the old notmoney boards was such serious bidness!

Its OK, I didn't realize your response was an attempt at being funny.

[Opti]

Sept 8, 2016 12:35:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Example #254,418 why polling news is just, well- silly

theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/07/example-254418-why-polling-news-is-just-well-silly/

No, we are not going to reverse course and start deconstructing the insufferable media polling. We are committed to continuing to ignore the nonsense, the ‘shiny thing’ chatter.



However, every once in a while an example surfaces where we can explain that decision using a current case in point. Cue today’s PPP Florida poll:



(Via PPP) […] PPP’s newest Florida poll finds a very tight race for President in the state. In the full field Donald Trump gets 44% to 43% for Hillary Clinton, with Gary Johnson at 5%, and Jill Stein and Evan McMullin each at 1%. But in a head to head between Clinton and Trump, the nominal lead flips to Clinton at 47/46. That’s because voters who support one of the minor candidates or are undecided in the full field pick Clinton by 12 points over Trump if they had to choose just between the two major candidates. (link)



OMG… “tight race“. Oooooo,…. Ahhhhh,….. etc.

However, look at this first:


And this: 

The big red bolded stuck out at me scrolling through this. What's important is not voter registration, but actual voter participation. All polls make their assumptions.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 8, 2016 17:31:14 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 8, 2016 12:35:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Example #254,418 why polling news is just, well- silly

theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/07/example-254418-why-polling-news-is-just-well-silly/
However, look at this first:


And this: 

The big red bolded stuck out at me scrolling through this. What's important is not voter registration, but actual voter participation. All polls make their assumptions.

not to defend Paul, but Democrats tend to vote in LOWER numbers than Republicans.

however, if PPP is doing their job, they know that.  and they know that turnout between Dems and GOP will be about the same.  which means that they probably adjusted their data to fit the Demographics.  this is actually why good, scientific polling is so accurate.  it takes stuff like that into account.  in other words, what conservativetreehouse is getting up in arms about is what polling firms DO to make accurate polls.  they are not giving the public the raw data.  it is all compiled based on demographics.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 8, 2016 12:32:24 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Trump delivered the single most substantive foreign policy and national defense addresses I've seen since I was old enough to vote. It's surprisingly rock solid, chock full of specifics, and like all substantive, detailed proposals made by Republicans, it will be promptly ignored:

'Unilluminating blather' - US media's initial response

Gabriel Debenedetti writes on the Politico website that neither candidate did much to advance their cause, with Hillary Clinton spending "a third of the time fending off questions about her emails" while "Donald Trump struggled to explain his secret plan to defeat the Islamic State."

Time agreed, citing "plenty of unilluminating blather spewed by both candidates". It said: "The most dispiriting thing was the grim view of the world the candidates gave Americans, with their relentless focus on fighting and terror... There was scant optimism."

One focus was on the performance of NBC moderator Matt Lauer. The New York Times pronounced that the "consensus afterwards was not kind". "Mr Lauer found himself besieged... by critics of all political stripes, who accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness and even sexism in his handling of the event."

Lauer's main miss, it seemed, was not to press Donald Trump when he said he had not supported the war in Iraq. Vox was among those pointing to a 2002 Trump interview with radio host Howard Stern that contradicts this.

www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303057

[OldCoyote]

Sept 8, 2016 11:50:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 8, 2016 10:32:05 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

They didn't have to do anything to please the GOP,  they had all the votes they needed with out any vote from any Republican!!

you're right- but they had to make concessions to conservatives IN THEIR OWN PARTY.  but they were also courting Susan Collins of Maine.

don't you remember any of this?

yes I do,  They still cave in, vote for it.    They owned 100% of this steaming pile.

Looking back where the Repos were trying to stop parts of ACA,  they did not need to, this is going to die from it's own weight!!!!

[happyhoix]

Sept 8, 2016 18:01:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 8, 2016 12:32:24 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Trump delivered the single most substantive foreign policy and national defense addresses I've seen since I was old enough to vote. It's surprisingly rock solid, chock full of specifics, and like all substantive, detailed proposals made by Republicans, it will be promptly ignored:

'Unilluminating blather' - US media's initial response

Gabriel Debenedetti writes on the Politico website that neither candidate did much to advance their cause, with Hillary Clinton spending "a third of the time fending off questions about her emails" while "Donald Trump struggled to explain his secret plan to defeat the Islamic State."

Time agreed, citing "plenty of unilluminating blather spewed by both candidates". It said: "The most dispiriting thing was the grim view of the world the candidates gave Americans, with their relentless focus on fighting and terror... There was scant optimism."

One focus was on the performance of NBC moderator Matt Lauer. The New York Times pronounced that the "consensus afterwards was not kind". "Mr Lauer found himself besieged... by critics of all political stripes, who accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness and even sexism in his handling of the event."

Lauer's main miss, it seemed, was not to press Donald Trump when he said he had not supported the war in Iraq. Vox was among those pointing to a 2002 Trump interview with radio host Howard Stern that contradicts this.

www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303057

I think Lauer also fell down when he asked Trump about his twitter comment from 2013 about how women in the military getting raped was just what happens when they allowed men and women to serve together in the military.  www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303432

Lauer didn't press him on that, just kind of glossed over it.

I think Trump's belief that men can't control themselves and can't help but rape women if they get half a chance says a lot about Trump's moral compass, but this hasn't gotten a lot of attention, I don't think.

People must be getting burned out due to the sheer volume of shitty things Trump says.

[happyhoix]

Already this morning, here is a good example of Trump's almost treasonous word salad:

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-attacks-us-foreign-policy-political-press-corps-on-state-owned-russian-television-network/ar-AAiFCfQ?ocid=iehp

He says these things on RUSSIAN OWNED TV.

It also includes his excuse for why he keeps saying stupid shit:

“Well, I think the dishonesty of the media. The media has been unbelievably dishonest,” Trump responded. “I mean they’ll take a statement that you make which is perfect and they’ll cut it up and chop it up and shorten it or lengthen it or do something with it.”

“And all of a sudden it doesn’t look as good as it did when you actually said it. But there’s tremendous dishonesty with the media. Not all of it, obviously, but tremendous dishonesty,” he said.

Yes, Donald. You aren't actually saying stupid shit. It's when the lying press repeats the words that come out of your mouth that your shit sounds stupid.

Reagan must be flip flopping over in his grave at the way this supposedly conservative GOP candidate is playing footsies with our most ardent, long term enemy. Any other candidate in any other election cycle would be drummed off the air for it.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 9, 2016 6:59:36 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 8, 2016 18:01:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

'Unilluminating blather' - US media's initial response

Gabriel Debenedetti writes on the Politico website that neither candidate did much to advance their cause, with Hillary Clinton spending "a third of the time fending off questions about her emails" while "Donald Trump struggled to explain his secret plan to defeat the Islamic State."

Time agreed, citing "plenty of unilluminating blather spewed by both candidates". It said: "The most dispiriting thing was the grim view of the world the candidates gave Americans, with their relentless focus on fighting and terror... There was scant optimism."

One focus was on the performance of NBC moderator Matt Lauer. The New York Times pronounced that the "consensus afterwards was not kind". "Mr Lauer found himself besieged... by critics of all political stripes, who accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness and even sexism in his handling of the event."

Lauer's main miss, it seemed, was not to press Donald Trump when he said he had not supported the war in Iraq. Vox was among those pointing to a 2002 Trump interview with radio host Howard Stern that contradicts this.

www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303057

I think Lauer also fell down when he asked Trump about his twitter comment from 2013 about how women in the military getting raped was just what happens when they allowed men and women to serve together in the military.  www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303432

Lauer didn't press him on that, just kind of glossed over it.

I think Trump's belief that men can't control themselves and can't help but rape women if they get half a chance says a lot about Trump's moral compass, but this hasn't gotten a lot of attention, I don't think.

People must be getting burned out due to the sheer volume of shitty things Trump says.

Many are. Too many are not. From the Ken Burns thread and linked article:

"Many of our media institutions have largely failed to expose this charlatan, torn between a nagging responsibility to good journalism and the big ratings a media circus always delivers. In fact, they have given him the abundant airtime he so desperately craves, so much so that it has actually worn down our natural human revulsion to this kind of behavior.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 8, 2016 22:02:01 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Sept 8, 2016 11:50:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you're right- but they had to make concessions to conservatives IN THEIR OWN PARTY.  but they were also courting Susan Collins of Maine.

don't you remember any of this?

yes I do,  They still cave in, vote for it.    They owned 100% of this steaming pile.

i agree.  the only thing we DISAGREE about is whether they "got everything they wanted".  they didn't.  the final bill was a compromise to their own conservative branch, and closely resembled RomneyCare.

Looking back where the Repos were trying to stop parts of ACA,  they did not need to, this is going to die from it's own weight!!!!

i find that highly doubtful.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 9, 2016 6:59:36 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 8, 2016 18:01:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

'Unilluminating blather' - US media's initial response

Gabriel Debenedetti writes on the Politico website that neither candidate did much to advance their cause, with Hillary Clinton spending "a third of the time fending off questions about her emails" while "Donald Trump struggled to explain his secret plan to defeat the Islamic State."

Time agreed, citing "plenty of unilluminating blather spewed by both candidates". It said: "The most dispiriting thing was the grim view of the world the candidates gave Americans, with their relentless focus on fighting and terror... There was scant optimism."

One focus was on the performance of NBC moderator Matt Lauer. The New York Times pronounced that the "consensus afterwards was not kind". "Mr Lauer found himself besieged... by critics of all political stripes, who accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness and even sexism in his handling of the event."

Lauer's main miss, it seemed, was not to press Donald Trump when he said he had not supported the war in Iraq. Vox was among those pointing to a 2002 Trump interview with radio host Howard Stern that contradicts this.

www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303057

I think Lauer also fell down when he asked Trump about his twitter comment from 2013 about how women in the military getting raped was just what happens when they allowed men and women to serve together in the military.  www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303432

Lauer didn't press him on that, just kind of glossed over it.

I think Trump's belief that men can't control themselves and can't help but rape women if they get half a chance says a lot about Trump's moral compass, but this hasn't gotten a lot of attention, I don't think.

People must be getting burned out due to the sheer volume of shitty things Trump says.

are you familiar with Gish's Gallop, happy?  if not, look it up.  it is a debating technique, which, effectively Trump is using.

[happyhoix]

Sept 9, 2016 10:36:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 9, 2016 6:59:36 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I think Lauer also fell down when he asked Trump about his twitter comment from 2013 about how women in the military getting raped was just what happens when they allowed men and women to serve together in the military.  www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37303432

Lauer didn't press him on that, just kind of glossed over it.

I think Trump's belief that men can't control themselves and can't help but rape women if they get half a chance says a lot about Trump's moral compass, but this hasn't gotten a lot of attention, I don't think.

People must be getting burned out due to the sheer volume of shitty things Trump says.

are you familiar with Gish's Gallop, happy?  if not, look it up.  it is a debating technique, which, effectively Trump is using.

Hmm, did not know that term, but it is absolutely what Trump does.  Hopefully Hillary is honing her anti-Gish debating techniques. The debate moderators can help rein it in by trying to limit how many different talking points Trump spews, but not if they do a crappy Matt Lauer job of it.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 9, 2016 10:48:07 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 9, 2016 10:36:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

are you familiar with Gish's Gallop, happy?  if not, look it up.  it is a debating technique, which, effectively Trump is using.

Hmm, did not know that term, but it is absolutely what Trump does.  Hopefully Hillary is honing her anti-Gish debating techniques. The debate moderators can help rein it in by trying to limit how many different talking points Trump spews, but not if they do a crappy Matt Lauer job of it.

he does it through OPPORTUNITY and AD LIB.  the truth is that he is totally uninformed, but has a lot of confidence in his opinion.  what that means is that he gets it wrong A LOT.  if you have been watching politics for a while, you have seen this before in the nativist whackadoodle right like Palin, Bachmann, and Aiken.  it would be lovely to see it crushed, giving birth to a new era of thoughtful politics, but i am not holding my breath.

[happyhoix]

So Trump is now saying that Larry King tricked him into appearing on Russian TV.

talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-camp-explanation-rt-interview

Do we want someone as POTUS who can be tricked by a 98 year old?