Hmmmm...haven't we seen this movie recently? That sounds awfully familiar...


Oh yeah, that.

*shurg*

Fair enough. When I re-listened, I realized that he didn't pause like I thought he had. That said, he was talking about *after* she was elected, so his claim that he meant "2nd Amendment people" holds no water with me. (Yeah, that probably feeds into why I read the comma into it.)

Yeah and I read a few articles about it - each of which had a lot of innuendo backed up only by a few lines from an email which were hugely redacted to the point of being meaningless ... or more accurately could be interpreted at anything with a bit of effort.

(in contrast Trump cleverly made himself headlines ... again ... by clearly stating something outrageous with just enough of a 'get out' to keep his supporters indignant about the press jumping on him ... ho hum ;) )

Y'know, the other thing that occurs to me in these last few gaffes of his is how ironic it is that the "tell it like it is" candidate is having to have his words "clarified" so frequently lately.

"Race" being a loosely defined term - but even 538 is predicting (with their polls plus) 48.1% to 44.3% for Hillary.

And, even 11 days ago, the polls-only had Trump in the lead.

I still don't understand the purpose of the media and forums to quote national polls (or poll of polls) when they are irrelevant to the election. They may indicate a trend or national mood (if that is a thing) but the only polls that matter are the contested states. I saw that Georgia is in play and if that is the case, then my prediction of Trump of not winning any battleground states would be true.

Source.

And the national polls are pretty good indicators of what will happen at the state level. Almost always, the national winner is the state level winner.

A couple of weeks ago the agenda of the media was to retain interest in the election by making it appear it would be a close run race.

More recently they seem to have shifted instead into the story line that its a disaster for Trump and promoting that viewpoint, i.e. Republicans backing away from him etc.

I think the main reason for this is simply that it was becoming less and less credible that they could believably promote the election as a close run thing when one candidate is so obviously off the rails.

Was this about a donor having been placed on some nuclear task force/policy group despite having no background in that field (then quietly resigning when someone asked about it)? If so I heard that reported weeks ago. If it's something new, then carry on. :)

(That's something that media on the right will do too - they will circulate old stories again, hoping that they will stick this time or just add to the feeling that this is a constant thing with the Clintons.)

I liken it to the attorney to deliberately says something that is immediately disallowed by the judge. The judge then orders the jury to "disregard" what they heard. The jury, being made of human beings, is only able to do so to a certain extent.

Here, it seems like a nice way to have it both ways. Candidate issues call for something repellant to many (especially the cognoscenti) but attractive to others (the intended base). Then apologist lackey goes forth and speaks (in cognoscenti-laden venues) about the intended effect, seeking to walk the substance back.

The base gets its red meat. The larger audience gets some plausible deniability. And now we're on to the next chapter of the same story. Rinse. Repeat. Vomit.

My pet dog could get 40% of the vote if he was labeled a Democrat or Republican. The country is just so divided.

I would only vote for a cat. Dogs are so needy and un-Presidential!

No way! Cats are selfish and only in it for themselves. Dogs are for the people!

Dogs are communists and cats are libertarians.

What's the most pragmatic left of center animal?

platypus, because it's something that defies categorization and probably shouldn't exist.

Giuliani: Trump Supporters Would’ve ‘Gone Wild’ Had Trump Really Called For Clinton’s Assassination

This has got to be the absolute worst defense of Trump's Second Amendment People comments.

So some moron is trying to climb Trump Tower today and he has been at it for at least two hours thus far. Supposedly he left this video.


Toys in the attic he is crazy...


Live Stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QobWf20dXs

Well the police got him.

Strictly as shown here -- absent any context or expansion or anything else -- I can't really argue with what's attributed to Giuliani.

Anybody who thinks there isn't a VERY sizable contingent that would like nothing better than the chance to piss on HRC's grave is kidding themselves.

was pretty funny when they yanked him up at the end.

No real surprises here, but fairly humorous on two main points that an analysis reveals:

1. It's very likely that Trump himself writes the mean/angry tweets while the generic ones with hashtags, links, and photos are written by campaign staff.
2. It's very likely that Trump's personal activity on the account has decreased dramatically in recent weeks.

Text analysis of Trump's tweets confirms he writes only the (angrier) Android half – Variance Explained

Is Trump's Campaign Locking Him Out of Twitter? - The Atlantic

Uh....


I wonder which slice of Trump's current support this will alienate.

He's actually very left-wing on his economic ideas. His supporters don't care about policy so I don't think it's going to alienate anyone.

Some of his economic policy. He's also for huge top income tax cuts, repeal and cessation of regulations, and more freedom for the financial industry.

Practically, he's an orthodox economic GOP President (going back to Reagan): cut taxes, increase spending, use leverage, let the Democrats fix it later.

He's really anti-free trade though. Reagan was the opposite.

I was listening to that interview live and thought "You know what, this would be a lot of really good stuff...if he had any actual plan to pay for it". From the interview he seems to think it would be paid largely through corporate repatriation even though there is no chance he actually taxes it to a meaningful amount.

He wants to tax repatriation at 10%. That's not bad.

+1 "Spend more to improve our nation's crumbling infrastructure" should be a bipartisan idea. Even back when Bush and Obama were pushing their respective stimuli packages I was hoping they'd create a new (less regionally specific) TVA. Actually create blue collar jobs, invest in our nation's economy and future, and give every congressman a chance to get a slice of pork? Seemed like a no brainer then and even more so now.

(Of course I also thought we should push for improving the technological infrastructure too, but maybe that was best left to the private sector as new technology fights it out. If Google, err Alphabet, can actually pull off their wireless fiber idea that's a much more efficient solution than any government extension, which would necessarily be slanted towards the last milers. But I don't see any potential massive leaps in how to build roads or bridges on the horizon ;) )

Solar roads, baby!

In spite of all the white nationalist spew, Trump def has some good ideas(on trade, etc). I won't vote for him, but i think a more level headed Republican with a bit of charisma should co-opt a lot of his better ideas for a 2020 run.

Yeah but that goes back to my comment about him actually following through. Then you have the issue of how the money must be/can't be spent once it's back. Think I read somewhere the last "holiday" under GWB was supposed to have the money spent on R&D and workforce development but then the vast majority of it was actually used for executive comp and stock buybacks.

I don't exactly trust Trump to hold a hard line on that.

Hillary voted for the last "holiday" and her husband signed one himself while in office. Trump's asking for 10%. On this issue Trump is much further to the left than Hillary.

I wasn't making an argument between Hillary and Trump.

Trump has laid out a "plan" for trillions in infrastructure spending and the closest he has come to explaining how it will be paid for is through this repatriation. Do you think he will actually get it covered through that and not just send ramp up the deficit by a few trillion?

Fundamentally correct logic. Politically toxic, but absolutely sound.

Trump is an absolute clown and shouldn't be anywhere near a Presidential race, but you can't argue with this, agreed.

Stopped clock, once a day, etc....

Yup.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...23771022129888

So some of the first polls have come out for South Carolina, and my home county, which I have not seen a single Hillary sign and is very Republican..has Trump ahead 41-39. The state is apparently a battleground state now too. That's just crazy bad for Trump is accurate.

PPP poll of South Carolina:

Trump 41, Clinton 39, Johnson 5, Stein 2

Well, it was PPP.

That said, this thing really seems like it has the potential to fall completely off a cliff for teh Donald. I'm not taking a Mondale-esque loss off the table.

PPP, despite being a partisan firm, has been very accurate.

Heh. "Breaking News" from Fox: "Trump losing support from Hispanic voters."

If Trump were to lose SC, it would be the first time the state went Democratic since Jimmy Carter in 1976. I was about 10 years old then. (50 now)

FTFY