U.S. Elections: The Narcissist and the Nineteenth Amendment

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

 

Yep, at least one of them enjoys making MRA comments to excuse the Donald's behavior. However, Hillary was just getting over a difficult moment in having to answer that question about him. 

I thought the looks on the kids faces would have eviscerated Clinton, if that could have been possible.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

This evening on Facebook some jerk took me for a Hillary supporter (just because I don't think it's okay to brag about getting away with unwanted physical advances) and did say that repealing the 19th amendment might be a good idea. 

An aquantance posted a photo of Trump and Michael Jackson flying to see a kid with HIV back in 1990.  The photo has a Sihk bodyguard in the background.  The second comment on the thread was "who's the towelhead?".  

I called th poster out and for my trouble was accused of being a "liberal, a "fuckhead", a "racist", and accused of being "single" presumably to bring masculinity into question.  The poster also said he would like to "slap the shit outa me" if he sees me.

Quality people in the Trump camp.

[DanteGabriel]

29 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Yeah, I realize she was in a bind, but I did not love Hillary saying she admired Trump's children when Don Jr and Eric, at least, appear to be alt-right white nationalists who are at least as bad as their father, and maybe more dangerous in the long run.

Her compliment to the Trump-spawn was very finely worded. She praised them for being "capable" (of what?) and "devoted." That's a pretty thin compliment when you think of it. That's a compliment you can give to a promising young go-getter in the SS.

And Trump, by his own words, had little to do with raising the kids. He preferred to supply the money and let the wife and hired help raise his children. So is it a compliment to Trump that he got a good result from women's work? Usually it's women who get compliments in how good their kids are, I think. But no doubt he thinks his kids turned out well due to his superior genetics.

Hillary had to compliment Trump, and I would argue that the way she did it was some advanced, subtle shade. Even he seemed to sense it, since he started off saying he wasn't sure she was complimenting him. Which just made him look more peevish and petty.

[OldGimletEye]

30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I called th poster out and for my trouble was accused of being a "liberal, a "fuckhead", a "racist", and accused of being "single" presumably to bring masculinity into question.  The poster also said he would like to "slap the shit outa me" if he sees me.

It's for this precise reason I refuse to call myself progressive. For too long, conservatives have believed that they can shut down an argument by saying the "L" word. And for too long they have gotten away with making it a dirty word.

I'm on a personal mission to take the word back. When asked by a conservative what my political leanings are, I never say "progressive". I say "liberal". It's my way of challenging them to start some shit, if they would like too.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

I'm a "classical liberal".

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

I'm a "classical liberal".

I'm a social liberal pretty much. I have one of my feet in the garden of eden of classical liberalism, but I'm not entirely in there.

[Zorral]

It seemed that the question was one of the few which had not been anticipated and she had no quick response to pull up out of her prep.  I wouldn't have even been able to come up with what she did come up with after a few seconds in which we could see her sifting and thinking -- there's nothing there that I admire!  So I admire her response.  She said she admired him for having kids that were loyal to their father.  It was as uncontroversial as it could possibly be, if as warmly expressed as undrunk tea sitting on the counter for a couple of hours.  I, at least admired her immensely for coming up with this, and doing so as fast as she did.

And, yet, here we are, finding controversy, conflict and criticism even with that.

In the meantime we need to be far more concerned that at the week's security briefing the orange stalin flat out denies that the Federal investigators don't know what they're talking about. A whole new dimension to politicos refusing information that doesn't fit what they want to hear, like Bush and Cheney and WMD. That turned out so very well.

WaPo -- Pay wall, so I give the url instead of linking:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-refusal-to-accept-government-assessments-on-russian-hacks-dismays-former-officials/2016/10/14/6d1c7f60-8fc4-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html

 

[LongRider]

Danny Elfman writes a musical score "Trump Stalks Hillary."

 

[Ariadne23]

16 minutes ago, Zorral said:

She said she admired him for having kids that were loyal to their father.  It was as uncontroversial as it could possibly be, if as warmly expressed as undrunk tea sitting on the counter for a couple of hours.  I, at least admired her immensely for coming up with this, and doing so as fast as she did.

And, yet, here we are, finding controversy, conflict and criticism even with that.

Oh hey, it wasn't a bad answer all things considered, but I'm not thrilled with it because a fair number of people at least used to be a bit like "well, he can't be that bad if he has kids like that." And by "like that" they did not mean "white supremecists." Further, didn't we convict people of loyalty to a nasty cause at Nuremburg? (Trump provides endless Godwin opportunities.) But yeah, she was in a tight spot. I've literally got nothin' on that question. Well...okay, I admire his ability to see the potential for free publicity in social media and ability to command the news cycle. But that would've seemed too back-handed from her at the debate.

[Shryke]

5 hours ago, lokisnow said:

She shouldn't have said it because if she'd not said it she'd probably have a higher ceiling right now. With the comment She forced a lot of people who were in the "meh trump" camp to more fully commit to his team, now with all the recent GTBTP fallout they will not decommit  from the team. They'd have never really joined up if Clinton hadn't launched her attack causing them to choose sides based on HER misbehavior. 

Note, it is only after her polling collapse following the deplorable comment that she started embracing Michelle obamas campaign script, thank goodness, it's a relief to have her on positive.

 

sloghtly unrelated but Liz warren has been promoting the mantra that "personnel is policy" and has made it clear she's not going to stand for clintonian Personnel types who encouraged getting rid of glass steagal and all the other republican economic policies the clintons and summers promoted that helped lay the groundwork for the Great Recession so I'm very curious how staffing appointments play out in the event of a Clinton win.

Please. It needed to be said and got little attention compared to the stupid "health scare".

The only people who really seemed to care are the deplorables themselves, who've embraced the label.

[LongRider]

7 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

 But yeah, she was in a tight spot. I've literally got nothin' on that question.

He really has a fine collection of neck ties.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

 

Yeah, the convention bump was fading.

Clinton and Obama tried the whole "Trump isn't conservatism, join us(or please just stay at home)" thing. It didn't work even before the comment. Notice how the Obamas are now taking a hatchet to Trump and the GOP.

Her numbers haven't risen cause of some saintly Michelle Obama plan, they rose cause she won the debate, which was seen by 100 million people, and Trump's campaign has collapsed into a defense of his brand against endless assaults.

I'm not a fan of theories of conservative behavior that depend on singular moments of liberal smugness. I suspect that liberals really overestimate the degree to which they should be able to move hardcore Republican voters in a polarized nation. 

I think whole "Trump isn't a real Republican, it's OK to vote for Clinton this one time" had been working well. You've seen support for it from many conservative voices.

They didn't switch tactics cause it wasn't working, they switched tactics because after the debate Trump began another media dumpster fire cycle and his campaign is now dead for all intents and purposes so now they are working on the downballot, which means tying senators, congresspeople and such to Trump.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 hours ago, lokisnow said:

She shouldn't have said it because if she'd not said it she'd probably have a higher ceiling right now. With the comment She forced a lot of people who were in the "meh trump" camp to more fully commit to his team, now with all the recent GTBTP fallout they will not decommit  from the team. They'd have never really joined up if Clinton hadn't launched her attack causing them to choose sides based on HER misbehavior. 

Note, it is only after her polling collapse following the deplorable comment that she started embracing Michelle obamas campaign script, thank goodness, it's a relief to have her on positive.

Exactly. That statement was not smart. Had she singled out certain people or groups it would have been fine, but she used it as a blanket statement.

[Zorral]

24 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Oh hey, it wasn't a bad answer all things considered, but I'm not thrilled with it because a fair number of people at least used to be a bit like "well, he can't be that bad if he has kids like that." And by "like that" they did not mean "white supremecists." Further, didn't we convict people of loyalty to a nasty cause at Nuremburg? (Trump provides endless Godwin opportunities.) But yeah, she was in a tight spot. I've literally got nothin' on that question. Well...okay, I admire his ability to see the potential for free publicity in social media and ability to command the news cycle. But that would've seemed too back-handed from her at the debate.

To be fair neither the question nor her answer included anything about her admiring the kids themselves.  It was that she admired how (interpolate if we so wish -- such a total monster -- that's what I interpolated anyway!   ) he has kids who still stay loyal to him.

In the meantime though it's good to finally see a news outlet state outright that the orange stalin's supporters are not the wretched of the earth.  I always knew this since my own relatives are big haters of Dems and Liburrels, believe technology will fix everything, that African Americans' problems are all their own fault and slavery mattered not at all, despise anyone from the east coast and professional politicians and the Federal government -- and are rolling in dough and all the big material benefits and health care and everything else (much of what was achieved by the way via the federal government starting with their training right out of high school for which they never had to pay a dollar).

[Seli]

An interesting analysis on the available data on (self-identified probable) Trump voters on vox. With the take-down message that economic hardship doesn't correlate, but fear for loss of racial status does quite well.

Quote

Any solution has to begin with a correct diagnosis of the problem. If Trump’s supporters are not, in fact, motivated by economic marginalization, then even full Bernie Sanders–style social democracy is not going to prevent a Trump recurrence. Nor are GOP-style tax cuts, and liberal pundits aggressively signaling virtue to each other by writing ad nauseam about the need to empathize with the Trump Voter aren’t doing anyone any good.

What’s needed is an honest reckoning with what it means that a large segment of the US population, large enough to capture one of the two major political parties, is motivated primarily by white nationalism and an anxiety over the fast-changing demographics of the country. Maybe the GOP will find a way to control and contain this part of its base. Maybe the racist faction of the party will dissipate over time, especially as Obama’s presidency recedes into memory. Maybe it took Trump’s celebrity to mobilize them at all, and future attempts will fail.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

And Trump, by his own words, had little to do with raising the kids. He preferred to supply the money and let the wife and hired help raise his children. So is it a compliment to Trump that he got a good result from women's work? Usually it's women who get compliments in how good their kids are, I think. But no doubt he thinks his kids turned out well due to his superior genetics.

Did you see Tiffany totally duck his kiss after the debate? That was kinda telling.

 http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/tiffany-trump-ducked-a-kiss-from-donald-trump-at-second-debate-watch-w444089

[kairparavel]

https://twitter.com/aletweetsnews/status/787335459043237888

Trump now feels HRC needs a drug test before the next debate because she was clearly on drugs last time.

[Spring Bass]

Here's a good reminder from Vox on what Trump voters actually are in demographic and economic terms: 
 

Quote

 

There is absolutely no evidence that Trump’s supporters, either in the primary or the general election, are disproportionately poor or working class. Exit polling from the primaries found that Trump voters made about as much as Ted Cruz voters, and significantly more than supporters of either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Trump voters, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver found, had a median household income of $72,000, a fair bit higher than the $62,000 median household income for non-Hispanic whites in America.

A major study from Gallup's Jonathan Rothwell confirmed this. Trump support was correlated with higher, not lower, income, both among the population as a whole and among white people. Trump supporters were less likely to be unemployed or to have dropped out of the labor force. Areas with more manufacturing, or higher exposure to imports from China, were less likely to think favorably of Trump.

. . . . 

So what is driving Trump supporters? In the general election, the story is pretty simple: What’s driving support for Trump is that he is the Republican nominee, a little fewer than half of voters always vote for Republicans, and Trump is getting most of those voters.In the primary, though, the story was, as my colleague Zack Beauchamp has explained at length, almost entirely about racial resentment. There’s a wide array of data to back this up.

UCLA's Michael Tesler has found that support for Trump in the primaries strongly correlated with respondents' racial resentment, as measured by survey data. Similarly, Republican voters with the lowest opinions of Muslims were the most likely to vote for Trump, and voters who strongly support mass deportation of undocumented immigrants were likelier to support him in the primaries too.

Even in the general election, while support for Trump is correlated most strongly with party ID, the second biggest factor, per the analysis of Hamilton College political scientist Philip Klinkner, was racial resentment. Economic pessimism and income level were statistically insignificant.

The message this research sends is very, very clear. There is a segment of the Republican Party that is opposed to racial equality. It has increased in numbers in reaction to the election of a black president. The result was that an anti–racial equality candidate won the Republican nomination.

 

 

[Lady Blizzardborn]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

It's for this precise reason I refuse to call myself progressive. For too long, conservatives have believed that they can shut down an argument by saying the "L" word. And for too long they have gotten away with making it a dirty word.

I'm on a personal mission to take the word back. When asked by a conservative what my political leanings are, I never say "progressive". I say "liberal". It's my way of challenging them to start some shit, if they would like too.

Good for you! However, I've also been castigated by so-called liberals when I dare to disagree with them. Their favorite slurs are Republican, neo-con, Fox News watcher, and Rush Limbaugh listener. I'm none of the four. It's not easy being an independent moderate these days. Both sides have room for an increase in maturity. 

Sounds like you are a true liberal though.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Sassy Trump Responds to Sexual Abuse Charges