heh that explains everything.

Yeah he destroyed their biggest competitor and stance on concussions would seem to be something the NFL would like in the oval office.

So is it insane to believe that maybe the GOP establishment plan is to get Trump elected and immediately impeach him?

Almost as though what one actually says has something to do with the quality of the speech. If the DNC in 2004 had brought out the mother of a 9/11 victim to make a "Bush did 9/11" speech, that would have been manipulative and a bad speech just as Pat Smith's was.

Good lord the cheerleaders will defend everything about their side. I have no horse in the race between the two but the media coverage is outrageously slantled. There was actually an article from the LA Times on my newsfeed that talked about how a military coup could "plausably" happen if Trump was elected. (They actually said it was plausible!) I tape a rerun of a show every night at midnight and two weeks ago it aired basically uninterrupted. This week it wasn't even aired for one minute with nightline extra coverage every night of the Democratic convention.

Totally crazy! That's like claiming the government forced a third party candidate to drop out of the race.

That'd be a Plan B if anything.

I think their plan is to try to tear down Clinton to the point that nobody reaches 270 so the House can pick someone else.

The problem with impeachment is I can completely see the Democrats going "oh hell no, you made this bed, you lie in it." The House can vote to impeach with a simple majority.

The Senate needs a two-thirds majority to remove the impeached from office.

What would be the Democrats' incentive to cooperate with Republican panic?

"You spent a year telling the nation how we'd be much better off with Trump than with Clinton, so why are you freaking out now? You said you could control him, so go do it."

I was thinking about this. Immediately is probably not on the table but it becomes more likely after the midterms are over.

...and to start the new work week, his first two tweets are about the Khans.

As you point out, it's a very thin balancing act. To win, he has to continue to do the things that'll get his base to come out in droves, while not also going too far so as to actively push people in the "middle" towards Clinton out of fear.

A more saavy politician might be able to split the difference, but we're now seeing the trouble Trump is having with the spotlight completely focused on him.

I don't know about plan, but I could definitely see it being discussed.

More likely, I would think, would be key GOP congressional leaders reaching out to Trump's circle and trying to suss out who's going to be in charge of legislation, and getting them on board. Aside from stuff he actually cares about, Trump is likely to be a rubber stamp for anything that his inner circle says is OK.


Link? Article or editorial?


Well, plus you impeach Trump, you get Pence. Arguably even worse for Democrats.

I'd be surprised if the goal is to keep everyone below 270 (actually very difficult to do unless you're going to find a way to get Johnson & Stein electoral votes, which in itself is going to be very, very hard).

It makes for an interesting question, though: would Trump or Clinton be more damaging to the GOP, long-term?


Trump's the guy who can't stop arguing the score in a pick-up basketball game, even when the other side realized and agreed that they missed one of his points in the tally.

So now "the media" is defined as a guy with a blog?

Reply to Flere...

It was an editorial obviously but as irresponsible as I have ever seen from a major newspaper. I guess whatever it takes to sell papers and pander? Like I said take the cheerleading out of the equation I am a Johnson supporter who is completely happy with a Clinton presidency and with some fear of a Trump presidency. It doesn't mean I need newspapers using scare tactics like vote Clinton or the military will do the job for you. It's this sort of shit that really rallies Trump supporters as well and I can't say that I blame them.

If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S. - LA Times

I can't figure out why print media is dying.

The headline is misleading, but I agree the headline is irresponsible.

The article really just talks about the possibility of some members of the military refusing to follow illegal orders. Not sure that's a coup.

Yeah, there's a guy from HS who posts a bunch of stuff to the effect of "hey, I don't really know but here's food for thought" (hint: he already has an opinion) and threw out one on if it was plausible for Johnson to siphon enough votes to throw it to the House. While the article he linked did have a 269/269 possibility, it was just from a wacky combo of red/blue. Don't think he quite understood how electoral votes worked, and that Johnson would actually have to get some.

Never mind that there is no "somebody else" - the House has to pick someone who actually received electoral votes.

Unless there are some faithless elector shenanigans...

Ted Cruz would no doubt be behind such a stupid plan.

Khan appears to be the real deal.

Without even talking about most of the piece here's the conclusion...

Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to.

I mean, I agree with the first sentence of your two sentence conclusion.

any new polls out since the DNC? Curious how much of a bump Clinton might have got from it.

I've only seen one, and it was substantial. But not sure if it was an outlier, need to wait for more to come in.

I mean, it's an Op Ed by one guy. Paul Ryan has an Op Ed in the Washington Post this morning that HRC is unfit to get security briefings that would be standard up until the election.

As an aside, unfit seems to be the word of this election cycle.

But, for clarity, this is just one academic's opinion, not the LA Times editorial board.

And Kirchick isn't your typical leftie writer. He's written for a number of very conservative publications over his career.

No, you have a vested interest in pretending as though you are a special snowflake for not being in lock-step agreement with every single issue on either platform put forward by the two major political parties. Everyone else is surely a mindless sheep except for you, the guy who reads and spells at roughly an 8th grade level.

Gotta hear both sides, though. Care to expose that writer's hypocrisy by explaining either what was in Khizir Khan's speech to make it bad/exploitative (in which case you somehow manage to have a much more negative view of it than Paul Ryan and John McCain did despite having 'no horse in the race') or what made Pat Smith's speech (a speech so unremarkable that I hadn't seen any right-wing people bring it up until after Khan's to attempt to make a facile comparison between the two) actually powerful or effective?

A CBS poll came out this morning with Clinton +6 in 2-person race and +5 with Johnson included. Which I think is about where were before both conventions. Except Johnson was at 10% (in the new poll),which is at the higher end of where he's polled.

I don't waste my time with internet tough guys.

Even though I don't agree with him on too much, I'm genuinely excited about the prospect of Johnson getting over 5% to get a third party back in the national spotlight.

Unfortunately he really needs to get to 15% to really have a chance at the national spotlight - by getting in the debates. Then again, listening to Trump, there may not be a debate ;).

Don't mis-represent an editorial as an article. Especially in the day-and-age when major newspapers will let pretty much anyone write an editorial because pageviews.


Didn't think this was functionally possible, but it is: Electoral College Tie Combinations

Utah's the only state where I've heard of a poll that has Johnson close to Trump/Clinton. So yeah, maybe he takes that, and then the other two split enough so that nobody gets 270.

The Libertarians have a huge ballot access problem as of today. They aren't currently on the ballot in states that account for almost 200 electoral votes. The map on their site doesn't make it clear which states they are likely to eventually get, but as of today they're nothing more than a potential spoiler in NC, FL and a few others.

https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map

I think he polls pretty well in New Mexico and Colorado but don't know where you can find the breakdown online. I know New Mexico is where he actually pulled like 4% in 2012.

I get fundraising emails from them all the time worried about ballot access. I think that is just as much a fundraising thing as anything. They were on 49 in 2012 no reason to think they won't be on all of them this year.

Again, this isn't an editorial. An editorial is put forth by the editorial board of the paper and is an official representation of the paper's beliefs. An Op-Ed is one person's opinion, generally an outside contributor, as was the case with this one. The Op-Ed name actually comes from "opposite of editorial" because the contributor speaks alone and not for the paper or its board.

Good point, digamma.

Colorado: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Colorado: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

New Mexico: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - New Mexico: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson

Utah: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Utah: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson


Not a ton of data, not particularly close in any to winning, but decent double-digits.

Isn't it basically impossible to get on the ballot in Oklahoma though?

Hmm, nvmd, they managed to get a zillion signatures in order to qualify.

Well: Election Update: Clinton’s Bounce Appears Bigger Than Trump’s | FiveThirtyEight

But I assure you that Trump's hands are bigger than Clinton's.

She should thank Obama for that big ass bounce.

#ThanksObama

Great. Now Obama is redistributing votes.

Just wanted to pull that out and quote it for no particular reason.

For the want of a hyphen...

So HRC has a big ass and Barry bounced it? Payback's a bitch, Bill. ;-)

and considering shes not Trump, she probably will. ;)

Umm ... I think the "opposite" in the name stemmed from it's literal position in the paper, on the page "opposite" the traditional editorial page.

The opinions are not necessarily contrarian.

So today,

Trump has decided no more interviews with CNN because they are unfair

Trump called a press conference to complain about a fire marshal

Scottie Neil Hughes said Trump's sacrifice was working so hard he blew two marriages

and the best

Trump surrogates are now saying Captain Khan was a Muslim Brotherhood agent and was killed before he could hurt American troops

He also called the election rigged.

If he loses (still an if, not a when), I don't think that he will concede. I think that he will contest the legitimacy of the election.

Question will be whether the GOP leaders agree with him on that or if they break ranks.

I've read both explanations. Of course they aren't always opposing viewpoints.

10 years from now Trump will swear he didn't run for president.

Just goes to show Trump doesn't understand how to keep Americans safe. :popcorn:

EDIT: Wait, the fire marshal he's complaining about today is a different one than he was complaining about last weekend?

Maybe he´s pulling a Borat on us ... ;)

Correct.

Assange says emails they have show her arming ISIS and then lying under oath about it.

One of these things is different than the others...

Wow at those 1988 and 1992 numbers for the Dems. Dukakis really blew it after the convention.

Then let him put it out there and let's debate it.

Trump keeps fucking that chicken.

Trump says anti-terror border policy is what really bothered Khizr Khan.

Fire marshals have a well known liberal bias.

I think Trump loses a point every time he talks about Khan.

I'm getting this weird feeling in the back of my mind that Trump doesn't actually want to win.

Shame on the bias mainstream media for only covering Khan and not Pat Smith ! Gotta hear both sides!1

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-frien...t-one-problem/

Plus the whole difference that Hillary hasn't spent the last 4 days attacking Pat Smith in the media being what's been covered with Trump and Khan. Minor detail to Fox News I guess though.

I think it was how it was covered. Smith was heavily criticized for her speech. Heck you even had a writer talk about how he wanted to beat her to death for it. And those that did treat it more respectfully played it out as her being manipulated by the GOP.

Enjoying the Khan vs Trump flare-up so far. Wonder what the Trump kids really think (and also about the step-mom).

And Trump said he wanted to punch the people that talked bad about him at the DNC convention (which would include Khan).


There's still a huge fundamental difference in the two speeches. One is the republicans still trying to blame Clinton for something that $20+ million has been spent on trying to get anyone to find her at fault and failed. Even their own biased investigation couldn't place blame on her.

The other speech was an attack of an actual policy Trump has talked about.

It would be absurd for the two to be treated the same by the media.

I'm not defending Trump. I'm saying there is a heavy bias in how things are reported. Are you really arguing that the media is neutral?

Both parents held political opinions that relates to their sons death. I understand people who think Pat Smith is wrong in her views. Just as I understand people who think Khan is wrong in his. I don't think either was "manipulated" into holding those views.

Like I'm voting for Hillary in the election and I can see the enormous bias there is in reporting today. Take a look at the Twitter feeds of the people who are reporting on the election and you can get where they stand politically.

You also have activist sites like Vox being treated as news.

The content of the speeches aren't why this is still a story though. This is how Hillary responded to being asked about Pat Smith. The media isn't talking about the speech at this point, the response is due to Trump insinuating, "there's something going on with the mother," and that he'd made sacrifices because he'd hired people to make himself more money, and then continued to double and triple down on the statement. If Trump had given a similar answer about Khan saying something along the lines of, "My heart goes out to those two for the loss of their son, and I haven't made that sort of sacrifice but my position is so that other families won't have to," then the Khan family would have seen little to no coverage beyond that.

Four days to call the father of a man who died saving his fellow americans a terrorist sympathizer.

New lows, being established daily.

Trump says anti-terror border policy is what really bothered Khizr Khan.

No, I'm arguing that the media has a reality bias. And as we all know, reality has a liberal bias ;)

Between that and calling Hillary the devil tonight someone is not happy about Monday's post convention poll numbers.

Just watch a few minutes of Fox News or listen to Rush and you'll change your mind.

They are bias as well. But 5% of the media being in the bag for Trump means 95% isn't.

This might be what scares me the most about Trump. The proper response to Khan is politics 101. Even simpler than that, really. And Trump--even in his own self-interest--couldn't do it.

If Trump can't take an obviously correct action when it is in his own interest, I am worried about when he has to make a hard decision and it is our interests at stake.

Leave Lee / Peart / Lifeson out of this.

Yeah. IIRC, Dukakis had like a 10 point lead at one point in the race before crapping the bed.

I'm with you on that.I so desperately want to root for him but shit like this irritates me about him...and makes him come off as untrustworthy. I am afraid of his lasting legacy for "conservatives". So he still doesn't have my vote.

“While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things. If I become President, I will make America safe again.”

Apparently, he jumped past the first ammendment? :)

Maybe, given his litigiousness, he'll sue Mr. Khan for slander.

Oh wait, truth is an absolute defense to slander.

Trump's more an Article XII guy when it comes to the Constitution.

How is this in any way a coherent response to anyone not associated with the Trump family?

I feel like the more idiotic he and his team sounds, the more they're pounded on for making no sense, the more it just strengthens his grip on his supporters. I'm honestly starting to worry about what might happen if he does mercifully lose the election. I could see many "patriot" groups really go off the deep end.

*phone rings*
John Kasich: Hello?
Paul Ryan: Hey John. So...uh...
Kasich: Fuck off.
*hangs up*

— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) August 2, 2016

I don't understand why you "want to root" for him other than the fact that he represents a party you seem to think represents your interests. Trump has never been about anybody other than himself, and we are all supposed to believe that suddenly he cares about all of our problems. Hillary may be in it for herself, but she also has a life of being a public servant, and at least if she has done it for her own glory, she has helped countless numbers of people...more than you or I. Trump pretty much had his wealth handed to him, fucked over most everyone he's worked with, and until about 8 years ago was against nearly everything your party stood for. I just don't get the appeal or "rooting" interest.

So let's say this is real. Let's say the proof is unassailable.

Two questions...
Does she drop out?
OR
If you are Obama, do you pardon her?
Would that even make a difference?

For my part, it wouldn't surprise me if there is something that could be argued to be proof, but could be lawyered effectively to not be foolproof.

Seriously. If they had them, what's he waiting for?

I've been of that opinion for a number of months now.

He isn't stupid, literally. And as a matter of fact his GOP candidacy shows that he isn't tone deaf (to his electorate). I really think the job of being president isn't interesting to him. The grind of it, the policy discussions, the daily briefings, etc.

I think we'll find out in a few years that he said whatever came to mind because he didn't want the job. But even if it isn't true....we'll probably hear that anyway. Shurg

As a military guy, are you at all put off by Trump's attacks on McCain and this Khan family (and I think there's been a few other incidents)? Military families have always been such a strong part of the Republican base, I don't understand why Trump has been able to keep so many of them when he expresses so much hostility towards people who have served, and their families.

My layman's impression is that the CIA was using State Department cover to run an operation and HRC knew about it well before the Benghazi attack, but not that Hillary authorized it. In which case, she definitely did lie at the Senate hearing... but I'm not sure a public hearing is where you want to be talking about heavily classified information. Now, if she's actually initiating the mission that would change things (and I think there's a very big question about who exactly is overseeing and authorizing some of these things), but that's not the impression I get of how these things work.

I'm not a military guy any more. :)

I'm not supportive of him in a military sense though. I'm more of your new-con and he's not that. He was against the Iraq war when I was for it. I think Hillary is more hawkish, honestly.

I'm for him from a business perspective. I think he might do well for the economy. That's really the only thing that intrugues me about him. But with no vision, even that is kind of, meh.

miked, let me rephrase. I want to root for the party that I have always felt is better for creating growth through privatization. I know I'm just hanging that out there for scrutiny, but it's my belief. More generally, there are a lot of issues I back the right-wing on. More so than the left-wing. I'm for compromise though, I've backed off a lot of my social stances, for instance. But the economy, the debt, the aggressive defense vs passive defense and the protection of American jobs by all means are things I support.

I don't believe, overall, that "we" (my side), picked the right person. The field of 17 was a disastrous approach this cycle. We basically have to compromise by coalition in order to keep the party together and it's not looking so good. So, basically, I am desperate because I want to vote and be a part of the process, I just really dislike Trump so far and well, I've never voted Democratic for the same (ideological) reasons some never vote Republican. So I'm stuck with no vote or a throw-away vote.

There was a super-delegate proposal floated recently that I liked for both parties.

Superdelegates get no vote unless
(1) No candidate has a majority of pledged delegates by the end of the primaries and
(2) 2/3 of superdelegates vote to "activate" the superdelegates.

That keeps them out of a normal primary. But, in the "break glass in case of emergency" type situation, they are there as a backup.

I think it was 538 that stated that if you were able to rank your top 3 preferred candidates and the voting was based off of that then it's highly unlikely Trump wins the nomination. The huge field was what allowed him to get through.

Maine's Ranked Choice voting initiative is really interesting and seems like a far better way of finding the actual candidate of the people.

Because Gold Star families aren't the only third rail Trump will grab:

Holy shit what an ass.

Hey now, that's a purple heart recipient you're calling an ass.



Trump: 'I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier' - POLITICO

Is this real life?

In all fairness the baby was probably criticizing him.

or is this just fantasy