I've had people say it's a hardening, actually ~ US presidential election 2016 part 9/11 never forget

Oh he can do that himself.

^^^ clearest excelsior/striking imagery crossover in a while

irl dying

irl dying

It's sad he was a buttball

watching weird twitter clown scott adams makes me feel good

A very 'eats shoots and leaves' sentence there but it works both ways.

Video deposition referred to above is live

https://www.buzzfeed.com/danielwagner/trump-video-depositions?utm_term=.ea3rZwgL0#.aaNrEVKXN

Trump suggests in one exchange that his incendiary comments about Mexicans made during his campaign kickoff — he said people coming here from the country were “rapists” — were premeditated. Another answer shows Trump bragging about how he signs hundreds of real estate leases but relies on others to actually read and review the documents.

xp it's more of a buffalo buffalo buffalo one

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 15m15 minutes ago
For those few people knocking me for tweeting at three o'clock in the morning, at least you know I will be there, awake, to answer the call!

How could staying up all night be a bad thing? It means he's ready for anything!

Sleep is for pathetic losers who can't afford low-grade trucker speed.

Kinda like Goldie Taylor's response to that:

https://twitter.com/goldietaylor/status/781927607021498368

Liiiiiike...if it were anyone else, I'd say that Trump's was a decent response to the 3AM criticism. But because it's Trump, I am 150% sure that he's just parroting someone else's utterance of that exact response.

Make that 250%.

It doesn't matter the exact percent, I can show you lots of percents, they're fine percents, great percents.

lol at Trump in the deposition. "I guess they wanted to get out of the lease because they think I said something terrible. But I won the nomination so I couldn't have said anything terrible."

perdollar, actually. Billions.

A politically smart person might be able to find the right angle to discredit Hillary with reference to Bill's affairs. Not the dalliances themselves, but rather the extent to which she worked to discredit his accusers (nuts/sluts), and to hush up allegations e.g. Broaddrick. You could then tie it to the case where she allegedly freed a child rapist and then laughed about it. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

But Trump's not smart and he will find a way to take neither of those lines of attack. His way of bringing it up will read as nagl victim-blaming.

So he'll flee from the frying pan (right-wingers saying he was too timid) to the fire (undecided and swing voters recoiling from watching him be MEAN to a GIRL).

@DougHenwood
The interesting but quite right-wing Dorothy Rabinowitz endorses HRC

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121

Serious question: If Sanders had been the nominee, who would all the neocons be endorsing?

And if your answer is a variation of "Not Sanders," what does that say about who Clinton is?

the freed child rapist + laughed about it "scandal" is so disingenuous

he keeps getting older, but women in their late 20s keep being a demographic

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2c/ef/cb/2cefcb07573cbafe34a3ee9cb90dd291.jpg

dammit just saw your gif shakey

henwood is pretty dumb, huh.

I have a followup question: If my grandmother had wheels, exactly what brand of trolley car would she be?

By citing Lewinsky et. al. Trump is appealing to those who cannot conceive of Bill ever being back in the White House in any capacity. But Trump had those votes already. He has only one audience he understands, appreciates and panders to. I expect a good 20% of the votes he'll get will be from voters who find him completely disgusting, but they'll do it because he's the Republican nominee.

Henwood has a rage-boner for Hillary that won't quit and it's disappointing because otherwise I think he does valuable work

Serious question: If Sanders had been the nominee, who would all the neocons be endorsing?

And if your answer is a variation of "Not Sanders," what does that say about who Clinton is?

― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Friday, September 30, 2016 2:02 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^^valid questions, imo

my guess is that most of them would've just remained silent?

henwood is pretty dumb, huh.

the questions were mine, Prince Stoner.

what does that say about who Clinton is?

it says she's someone with political positions that neocons find more palatable than sanders' positions. but that is hardly a surprise to anyone who can rub two neurons together. I note only that sanders is not the nominee. feel free to write him in if you wish.

serious answer: presumably they wouldn't endorse sanders but maybe they would have. he's still more a part of the US foreign affairs consensus than Trump. or maybe bc of his other issues they'd decline to endorse anyone but it's kinda a silly counterfactual. it doesn't indicate anything about who hillary /is/ - only that she is more palatable than Trump or Sanders to neoconservatives. but that's meaningless. if Trump is -50 palatable and Sanders is -30 and Hillary is -20, she'd be the closest to them and still lack much in common. now in reality she does share enough tenants in common that i think they should all endorse her but this game u keep playing of knowing her by her endorsements, especially when she's running against trump, just continues to be asinine.

tenets*

political positions that neocons find more palatable than sanders' positions. but that is hardly a surprise

Both ilxors and my friends on FB were saying in the spring that BS and HRC "were not that different."

The question presupposes that an American electorate that would nominate Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side would also have still nominated Trump on the Republican side, which I don't take as a given at all. The two processes are largely independent, but that doesn't mean they're completely independent.

"were not that different" i mean do u not understand nuance at all? they could disagree on 10% of things, and if she agrees with neoconservatives 5% more often than he does they'd obv prefer him to her. i don't understand why this is complicated for you?

i mean obv prefer her to him

this game u keep playing of knowing her by her endorsements

i don't; they are just (partly) confirmatory. Her smelly resume/mendacity is the North Star.

but it's non-information. preferring her to trump means that you recognize trump is an existential threat. "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

if they had endorsed her over jeb or cruz you'd have a case but of course they would not have

I think it'd be a good idea to have a president that neocons find revolting and refuse to endorse. (Unless it's Trump.)

HRC and BS are not that different inasmuch as they are both relatively rational actors who would've been running against a shit-flinging ape.

nobody who is reading this thread has any blinders on about who hillary clinton is, which is why the morbs robot is so tedious

Serious question: If Sanders had been the nominee, who would all the neocons be endorsing?

And if your answer is a variation of "Not Sanders," what does that say about who Clinton is?

― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Friday, September 30, 2016 2:02 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if sanders had been the nominee we would be seen complete solidarity from center right to far right against a jewish northeast socialist. the three parts of the republican coalition that are the most HRC friendly -- "professionals" from the national security blob, the "apolitical" centrist business/media elites, the pressed-khaki suburban decent types -- would absolutely find a way to make their peace with vulgar nationalism if faced with redistribution. hippie punching is a national pastime.

HOWEVER what's p stunning about this election is that the iron laws of partisan ID seem to be asserting themselves even when the candidacies are so bizarre. neither HRC and DJT are running all that diff from O vs Mitt.

The safest counterfactual is that Bernie would be running about the same! i think maybe worse for the reasons above, maybe a little better w/o the sexism and the peculiar specific hatred that magnetizes around HRC. it would not be a different country.

The question presupposes that an American electorate that would nominate Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side would also have still nominated Trump on the Republican side, which I don't take as a given at all.

seems to me that this would actually have implied a more unified mood

i think, if pressed, they would have endorsed trump, tbh. even for the wing of the gop more interested in empire-building than tax cuts, socialism is the worst thing.

In examining the overall history of major party presidential nominees, Clinton doesn't stand out as noticeably more mendacious or opportunistic than her nominee peers.

as ilx's resident neocon i'd like to say that if it were bernie v trump i'd endorse bernie. i find his foreign policy positions much more palatable than trump's.

some bad modifier agreement there, editing in a hurry as yoozh

xp unremarked upon in all of this was bernie's relative hawkishness! he wanted to do the necessary to destroy ISIS (and kick out assad/russians ?) iirc

I'd like to think a sizeable portion of the GOP would've gone Bernie. Rich people with international financial interests probably prefer to not have those interests threatened by the reactionary whims of a maniac.

yeah i think the pt is that would be the rational choice. whether they could've brought themselves to do it idk

but there are not enough of those people

fuckin tribes man

i liked schilling when he was playing for the red sox