Most don't seem so concerned with the that. Sure they want to to repeal it but I think they know it's not likely to happen.

Most of the pro-lifers I know tend to be women, not men.

:rolleyes:

Trumps attitude towards women is only going to create a spike of sexual assault among his supporters, no doubt.

As absurd as it is to think, I can now imagine Trump supporting women willingly being grabbed by the pussy at rallies, just to make a point(?). No hope for these morons. And the pro repeal the 19th women.... ffs.

and this insanity. What the hell is wrong with these people

Trump Supporters Standing by Their Man - YouTube

I should write a book called, "All the Things Michele Bachmann Has (and Continues to be) Wrong About". But I really don't want to spend the next three years of my life thinking about her. :)

Well yeah, because Trump will have more time on his hands.

Her personality is either totally made up, or she's insane.

Asking here as well.

Well I don't know about Schumer, but Joe Biden is one that's been brought up recently by Republicans:

Log In - The New York Times

A lot of democrats wanted to filibuster Alito but in the end didn't have enough party support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel...ion#Filibuster

Because they *aren't* being held to the same standard.

Schumer said in 2007 that the Senate shouldn't confirm another Supreme Court justice, absolutely. That is on the public record. But you know what? It never came up. We never found out whether Schumer would have tried to do what McConnell has done, or if it would ultimately have been a lot of hot air.

Even if there HAD been a third vacancy for George W. Bush to fill, just because McConnell has gone full "nope" doesn't mean that the Senate would have sat on the nomination. Remember, Robert Bork, whose nomination was so vociferously opposed by Senate Democrats that he eventually lost his confirmation vote and saw his last name turned into a verb, still got that vote. He had hearings. He had the whole nine yards. Garland hasn't even had that.

That's the problem. People saying "why aren't we holding Democrats to the same standard" conveniently ignore the part where they're holding things a Democrat may have said to the same standard as what McConnell is actually doing. "Joe Biden said a thing therefore it's okay for McConnell to refuse to allow the Senate to act in any way upon the nomination."

And there's no reason for him to act this way in the first place. It's not like the Republicans are in the minority and threatening to filibuster every piece of legislation (which is basically how they handled the first six years but whatever) unless his nomination is withdrawn. They're not opposing Garland on procedural grounds. They're flat refusing to act because Barack Obama is the President.

So...why? Why do that? Republicans hold the majority in the Senate. It's not like Democrats can pull a super secret magic trick and presto Garland occupies the Scalia seat courtesy of minority vote. There are precisely three reasons to behave this way instead of granting hearings and a vote:

1) He doesn't think his caucus would hold up in the face of public opinion, resulting in a Garland confirmation and the Scalia seat sliding from conservative to moderate;

2) he's looking to undermine the independence of the third branch of government by allowing the Supreme Court to be used as a political football between the executive and legislative branches;

or 3) because he knows there's a loophole in the Constitution: members of Congress cannot be arrested in the course of acting as members of Congress, which means even if the Supreme Court were to rule that McConnell's actions are unconstitutional, they have no way to actually compel him to obey a Court order. The Executive branch couldn't arrest McConnell for contempt, because he's acting as the Senate Majority Leader, not as a private citizen. So he'll burn it down on the off chance he might be able to "save" the Scalia seat for a conservative.

It's not the same standard. Not at all. This isn't speech vs. speech or action vs. action. It's "they said a thing so even though they never did the thing we're totally cool to do the thing."

They need to agree on some kind of time limit for a Supreme Court nominee hearing being started. But that means working together and compromising, so I'm not holding my breath.

If Hillary wins and the Dems flip the Senate, McConnell will backtrack and say, "The people have spoken and they've told us want us to confirm Merrick Garland as quickly as possible, so that's what we intend to do."

What I wonder is if Obama would be vindictive enough to say "no, motherfuckers, you made this bed, now lie in it" and withdraw Garland's nomination and let Clinton nominate her own candidate, as McConnell has been demanding.

I mean, *I* would be, but I can see Obama going along with a lame duck confirmation if for no other reason than to ensure Republicans don't try to seek payback for being held to their own statements a cycle or three down the line.

Yeah, that's always been my question during his presidency: he seems to act more centrist than would be his natural inclination because he's aware of the backlash it would cause, so how far into lame duck status would he have to be to revert back?

Woof, Honey Obama don't give no fucks about the GOP trying to distance themselves from Trump: (video in tweet)

All In w/Chris Hayes on Twitter: ".@POTUS to GOP: "You claim the mantle of the party of family values, and this is the guy you nominate?" #inners https://t.co/mouV1hFbIL"

Cant wait for the awesome stuff Michelle Obama is going to be saying on the trail in the coming weeks.

She had a pretty powerful speech today in New Hampshire. Here's what Dan Rather had to say about it:


edit: just saw that Trump is within the margin of error for a poll in TEXAS. Wow.

Looks like the slimy apple doesn't fall from the slimeball tree:

A host interjected that women “complain, ‘it’s harassment’ — that’s why we hate having them around. They stop us from doing what we want to do.”

“I’m of that mindset — and I’ll get into trouble, I’m sure I’ll get myself in trouble one of these days,” Trump began, “if you can’t handle some of the basic stuff that’s become a problem in the workforce today, then you don’t belong in the workforce. Like, you should go maybe teach kindergarten. I think it’s a respectable position.

(2013 interview with Opie and Anthony.. I guess since Trump Jr is a knock off of dear old dad, he goes to a knock off show of the one dad goes to ;))

It really was. Miss that show.

Here is Michelle's speech--an expression of moral clarity that I hope will someday be looked back upon as one of those turning points where a dark part of ourselves was named and brought out into the light:

First Lady Michelle Obama live in Manchester, New Hampshire | Hillary Clinton - YouTube

Aren't we all just like Ken Bone

Ken Bone Forgot to Delete His Reddit Porn Comments, Said Travon Martin Killing Was 'Justified'

I had him picked out as a boss the second I saw him in the background. I told my wife to keep an eye on the guy in red cable knit, because he knows what's up.

I'll go find a link, but I suspect that you may have missed a post that I made earlier about reformed vs. dispensational theology perhaps being a massive difference-maker in our circles.

At any rate, Erick Erickson brought down the HAMMER early this morning. Couldn't be prouder of him.

An Open Letter to the Christian Right | The Resurgent

Ah...here it is:

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

So pretty likely Trump creates his own news network once the election is over, right?

Some Trump supporter should just not say anything, especially on TV. I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt that he was not prepared and just spouting out stuff to try explain Trump ... at worst he's got some strange urges.

Curt Schilling Says Trump Eyeing A 10-Year-Old Was Totally Normal | Huffington Post

Definitely feels like many Christians have sold their souls to the devil to win now.


Curt Schilling is one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history, and a piece of shit human being.

Religion should not be a part of the equation at all. It is, but it shouldn't be. I can practice religion just fine no matter who is in charge and no matter what laws are on the books. Pro-choice? Go for it. My convictions are mine and mine alone. Gay marriage? Same. Who am I to judge others? Who is America to judge others? As far as I know, we all meet God for judgement on an individual basis.

So, should I go to hell for voting for Clinton? For Trump? Or Rubio if I choose to write in a throw away protest vote? It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to my individual relationship with God. As it notes in the letter Ben posted, God is not partisan.

That's a ridiculous assertion by that guy and totally ignores the chain of events that lead to his nomination.

1. He was nominated by the people who voted in the Republican Primaries, not the GOP.

2. The GOP political 'movers and shakers' have always been 'anyone except Trump'.

3. The people who voted for Trump in the primaries didn't necessarily vote for Trump because he was their ideal option, but rather because the GOP had so many ridiculously poor candidates, they voted for Trump to stick a finger in the eye of the GOP establishment.

4. Similarly, the people who now support Trump despite all of his missteps are the same people who see another Clinton on the Democrat ballot and say, "They're just as bad as the Republicans."

Most people aren't voting for Trump. They're voting a protest vote against all the stupid things going on in the two major parties. In the past, those protest votes often went to a third party, so no one cared. Now, in an election year that defies all belief, people are voting Republican in a form of protest despite the crazy nature of it all. Regardless of the end result, the political parties will have to do some major rewriting of their playbooks after this election. Anyone who doesn't will be left behind in 2018 and 2020.

So even if/when Trump loses, he obviously runs a spoiler campaign in 2020 as an independent, right? Dems better focus on the House the next two cycles if they want to keep the house from deciding the 2020 presidency.

Interesting thought, but I'm having a hard time imagining him setting himself up to lose again.

Beyond that, I really don't know what to expect from Trump supporters on November 9th and beyond. It could get, um, interesting.

Speaking to a different audience and in a different language, Erickson wrote a piece in the NYT this morning, on the same topic, that I found thoughtful:

Log In - The New York Times

Even after the last ten days Trump's favorability rating among GOP voters is over 70%. Look at the admittedly limited polling on GOP candidates that renounced Trump and you'll see a pattern of falling support among GOP voters. Trump voters have generally had a higher enthusiasm about Trump than Clinton voters have had for Clinton.

Do you have any data to prove your contention?

Too damn old. I can't even imagine what he'll look like/health in four years. No amount of orange spray can take care of some things.

via GIPHY

They're no different than me. I'm just glad we have something other than a rehash of the same old thing. Those same people are also thrilled to see all these GOP establishment people saying they won't support him, saying that he's way out of line, etc. The GOP needed to be dumped on its head and the disenfranchised conservative voters (myself included) find all the whining and complaining by McConnell, Ryan, etc. to be hilarious. Trump's an asshole, but everyone knew that before he was even in the primaries. People continue to support him because the GOP is so out of touch with their core voters and they want to dump the party on its head, even if that means supporting this guy and losing the election to a Clinton.

I'm probably a Johnson voter at this point, but I'm thrilled that I voted for Trump and helped make a mockery of the GOP power players. They look like idiots right now and it couldn't have happened to a better group of people.

Election was stolen. GOP conspired against me. The country is still in the toilet. White people are out of work. Etc etc. maybe he starts his own party?

Polls are skewed.

And if that's the rhetoric, do you really think that his die-hard grass-roots supporters will be wiling to wait four years under Crooked Hillary? I say again:

Dola-there's still room for a white nationalist anti-woman party in America apparently.

True. I would imagine there will be some serious threats against her.

Fixed that for you to align with my thinking. Hope I'm wrong.

So Trump voters are representative of the GOP base, just like Obama said.

While it's not quite the same, the Mole has spawned, versions in many countries-you should look on You Tube for them. The majority of them have subtitles, so at least you can follow along. Nobody quite is up to our boy Anderson though :)

Which is ridiculous as well. The media goes out of its way to put the video/pics out there of the rednecks that support Trump. That's fine and it suits the narrative, but there's plenty of people supporting him that don't fit the narrative at all.

The uneducated angry redneck Trump supporter narrative is nearly as bad as the narrative where people show uneducated BLM people spewing hatred and inciting violence. Meanwhile, the vast majority of us who have common sense are left seeing these two narratives and throwing our hands up knowing full-well that neither help fix the core problems in our government.

It's obnoxious.

.

Leave it to Obama to fit it to his narrative. As I clearly stated, most people who voted for Trump are not voting for Trump. They're voting to give the finger to the GOP. They really don't care if he loses or wins the election.

I would be very surprised if you could show any data proving that. Look at Trump's positions and the positions of his voters and it's pretty clear the vast majority support what Trump is selling.

Well at least his burgeoning political career was cut short...

I'll add that an interview I saw with Newt Gingrich somewhat confirmed most people's feelings on it. He said that if people don't vote for Trump, they should join the Democratic Party. His complaints were:

-Hillary will take away the right to bear arms.
-Hillary will put radical justices on the Supreme Court
-Hillary will allow religious prosecution.

Now I hear all that, and I'm honestly excited about it. I'm definitely a fiscal conservative, but I see this fear-mongering and I know....

-Hillary's not going to take away right to carry. She might take away some types of guns, but I will still be able to open carry in four years without question.
-The justices she puts in will still have to justify their findings. If he's trying to say that gays might get more rights, abortion will remain legal, churches may lose tax-free status, etc., I'm not worried in the least about these 'radical' changes.
-Hillary isn't going to persecute religions. Christian conservatives are whining because they aren't able to control the narrative nearly as much as they used to be able to do so. In my mind, that's fantastic. They should spend more time doing what churches should do and less time trying to tell me how I should live my life or how my government should be run.

That seems to be the going theory amongst media analysts. He's going to milk every last drop of fame that he can from this.

I find this narrative very hard to believe. It's an interesting attempt at spin, though.

I guess if you're at all a decent person - not an idiot, bigot, racist, or misogynist - and you're still voting for Trump after all of this, you have to come up with a narrative to make yourself believe that you're doing this out of some kind of principle or sense of common decency.

Ben, thanks for that link. I have a couple brothers (not my twin) who at the least believe in God-though they may not be regular church-goers, try to live a "Christian life", and it kinda disgusts me with some of the filth they get from Trump on a daily basis and post it on Facebook. Nice to see someone from the Christian Right who can see through Trump. If Trump had a D next to his name, instead of an R, I really think some of these same people who are praising Trump in God's name, would be calling him the Anti-Christ right now.

#EvangelicalsAgainstTrump isn't officially a trending topic, but it's getting a good bit of activity on Twitter right now.

So that Rasmussen poll showing Trump with a 2 pt lead? The breakdown showed Trump getting 24% with African-American voters. That... won't happen.

Isn't it probably because of this guy?

PS: Got to that by googling "guy that counted 3000 times in presidential poll". God bless Google. It was article #1.

That's either the most incompetent survey organization in the world or a concerted effort by people to skew the polls

That was the explanation for the LA Times/USC poll, which is the only poll besides Rasmussen that shows a close race. I'm not sure if something similar is causing it here, but there's no way Trump is getting a quarter of the black vote, and if he did, he'd be ahead by way more than 2 points.

Rasumussen also says in their poll release, "While other pollsters show women abandoning Trump, our latest survey finds the two candidates running almost even, but women are more than twice as likely as men to like some other candidate or be undecided. Trump has a six-point advantage among men."

That's believable

The opposite of evidence is anecdote, so take this for what it is worth, but I see a lot of my conservative/GOP-leaning colleagues as hard anti-Trumpers now.

I certainly don't know a lot of Trump's base. But I have a sense that before he is going to be able to cut into Clinton's base, he's going to have to make up the ground he's lost among moderate GOP voters. They are either voting Clinton or Johnson or none of the above.

So I was curious about what that Trump number among African-Americans would represent. Looks like it would be the best showing for a Republican since Nixon in 1960. Even Reagan only got 9% in a 49 state landslide.

2012: 93-6
2008: 95-4
2004: 88-11
2000: 90-8
1996: 84-12
1992: 82-11
1988: 88-10
1984: 89-9
1980: 86-12
1976: 85-15
1972: 87-13
1968: 85-15
1964: 94-6
1960: 68-32

Very well said. I think the first assumption by a supporter is: things are so broken that many rights should now be privileges.

I view much of the Trump vote as "Never Hillary" as mentioned... but agree with H_B that there is some major narrative-crafting to help people sleep at night right now.

In case you were feeling happy.

How Trump Took Hate Groups Mainstream | Mother Jones

I got an email from the Idaho Republican Party justifying their continued support for Trump - this was after Idaho Senator Mike Crapo was the first sitting Senator to come out and say he couldn't support Trump.

The main rationale was that the Idaho Republican party had a duty to support all Republicans running for office in Idaho. And that while Trump apologized for the things he said in the leaked video (did he?), Clinton hasn't apologized for all of the terrible things she did. And then they did a bullet-point comparison of Clinton v. Trump to emphasize and simplify the idea that yes, in theory, Trump professes values that are more in line with the average Idaho Republican than Clinton does. No mention of Johnson.

The whole thing sounded very defensive. "Vote Trump - because we kind of have to, I guess".

Edit: So they were not very enthusiastic about Trump, even though based on 538 projections, Idaho is Trump's 4th-best state in terms of likelihood of victory, after Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Alabama. But that's more due to us being super-deep red that being into Trump. Cruz won the primary here. And we have a random recent college graduate with no work or political experience as the Democratic nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives just because nobody else bothered to run.

I posted that article a couple pages back. The main takeaway is that it's actually good polling - they just apparently got the luck of the draw where their sample included the one young black Donald Trump voter. Bad polling or statistical analysis would be to either say 'Eh, there's no way this guy's serious' and swap him out for a Clinton supporter so it shows Trump has 0% support among African Americans or to desperately point to that particular poll for months while saying "SEE?! TRUMP'S WINNING BUT LIBRUL MEDIA BIAS."

But it seems to me that the problem is that one individual can affect the poll for a long period of time. With a phone poll, that same thing could happen depending on the respondents you get on any single day, but that error is minimized when you get a new group of respondents each day (or each polling period).

That can be a bug or a feature depending on whether you want to see if/when a particular group of people's opinions change over time.

But even on that note it's not really working out because that guy stopped responding.

I guess I understand the "Never Hillary" vote if you're essentially a one issue voter with respect to, say, abortion. (The Second Amendment issue is stupid. Clinton isn't taking away ones guns no more than Obama did. And the gay marriage issue is pretty much over.) Similarly, if you are really, really concerned about the make-up of the Supreme Court and think that if Clinton is in office for 4 years she'll be able to stack more liberal judges than Trump would. In this case, it's probably just as much "Never Hillary" as it is "Never a Democrat".

Beyond those types of examples, I have a hard time understanding the "Never Hillary" faction. If you're a moderate and think that way and plan to either not vote or vote for a third party person, congratulations, because you are one privileged motherfucker not have to really worry about all the things Trump has claimed he'll do if he becomes president.

I am a lucky motherfucker. As an upper-middle class, white male, I likely wouldn't be that strongly impacted, or impacted at all, by a lot of Trump's fear-based policies. Heck, I might even be better off under some of his fiscal policies (to the extent he has any), but I could not in good conscience vote for him based on his stated policies alone, even setting side the fact that he is a misogynistic, bigoted piece of human garbage.

I can't stress this enough as the reason I'm voting Hillary. I am a Hindu, born and raised in the United States. I don't have the option of voting third party (though I guess I could in Illinois) because the 1 in a million chance that Trump actually wins will put me and my family in a very uncomfortable position over the next four years. I'm not even Muslim and I can't imagine what is going through their heads at the moment..

Yeah, this is what I was talking about back during the primaries. The Bernie or Busters are a demographic who wouldn't suffer under a Trump presidency nearly as much as the Clinton voters. It's easy to call for everything to be blown up when you're not in the blast radius.

At that point though, you're basically saying it's bad poll design that they cannot compel all the respondents to constantly update them on who they're voting for over a period of however many months.

Clinton is certainly not winning by enough of a margin that there should be no polls that show Trump with a lead, and the more polls like that you throw out because 'that's not gonna happen,' the closer you get to the flip side of "everyone in the locker room at my country club is voting for Trump so it's going to be a landslide."

Or, as the sane portion of the population sees them: necessary for the survival of the nation realities.

Yeah, because our country is such dire peril...

We have more to fear from your "sane portion of the population" than we do from anything outside of our borders.

I think deep down it's just as much "Never a Democrat," but because it's HRC, it's more focused. Tribalism is a huge part of this. Ben Carson at least had the guts to be honest about it this morning: "it doesn't matter if Trump sexually assaulted those women; WE MUST PUT OUR TEAM IN THE WHITE HOUSE!"

Hostile Ben Carson Interview On MSNBC's Morning Joe: "Can You Turn Off Her Microphone Please" | Video | RealClearPolitics

I'm not arguing that at all. I was responding to your argument that they may be looking for how a certain group of voters change over time. The fact that you can't compel people to participate is why that's a very difficult thing to do and why it might not be a very useful methodology for polling. That doesn't mean I think Trump can't or shouldn't be leading in any polls. I'm sure there are polls showing Clinton with huge leads that have some weird crosstab results.

I get that and totally agree. HRC does make it much more focused for a wide variety of reasons. I would imagine for a lot of good, right-minded, decent Republicans it has to be very, /very/ hard to have to vote fro Trump to accomplish this goal. That is some odious shit you have to eat there.

I've tried to think about it from this side of the line. How bad would a Democratic candidate have to be or what would a Democratic candidate have to do, for me to vote Republican?

To go all JiMGa for just a moment, I kinda hope that the alt-right does get radicalized by a Hillary win... it would allow the Feds to take all of those motherfuckers down.

I'm a Democrat.

And the closest analogy I can think of is if Sean Penn ran against Dick Cheney.

I'd vote for Cheney, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

Some would argue that Hillary is just that candidate and we're blind to it (*coughtarconecough*).

But I was wondering that the other day myself. How left would they have to be? How left is TOO left... or how deranged is a bridge too far?

Hopefully won't have to find out.

That's a good analogy. I can't fucking stand Sean Penn.

Not even huge leads. I'm sure there are polls doing more or less the exact same thing as that one, but the 4 18-23 year old black males they're surveying all happen to be Hillary voters, so the results happen to look more "normal" to you or me.


Yeah, it's really bizarre to me how invisible people with extreme left-wing views manage to be. For the tired "both sides r just as bad" refrain to actually be true, there'd need to be a few sitting Congressmen and presidential candidates who want to defund the National Institute of Health because of vaccines or animal research.

Right, but I think that gets normalized when you continually get a new group of respondents. Now I don't know why Rasmussen is getting such different numbers, because their results are more than just a one day anomaly (has hovered between 18-24% over the last 4 days).

It's not impossible that LA Times/USC and Rasmussen have tapped into some Trump gains among African-American voters that have been missed by other polls. Maybe Trump is on his way to the best showing for a Republican among that group in 46 years. I just think it's very unlikely.

Let me put it this way. If Trump had the lead in a poll with a more realistic spread among minority voters, I'd be far more worried, because that means Hillary hasn't secured the suburban vote that she needs. So these two polls don't scare me, but admittedly I won't be comfortable until the election is called on November 8.

Silver lining of this election. Alex Jones videos.

https://www.facebook.com/CAFE/videos/1711284269194459/

If you treat "look at many different polls in aggregate" the same as "continually get a new group of respondents," that's pretty much what happens, and that's better than having every poll that shows African-American Trump support greater than 10 percent or some arbitrarily low number going "hmm this seems way off, better try again with a new sample" before publishing its results.

Anywho, here's the bold Trump strategy of the day:

Trump on President Obama and sexual assault: "Why doesn't some woman say what they say about me about him?"

— Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) October 14, 2016

I'm not sure what you're even responding to here. I've never said you shouldn't look at these polls, with whatever flaws I find in them, in the aggregate. I think that's exactly what you should do. I've also never argued that you should artificially manipulate the results when you get numbers that may not look right. I've simply said that I look at these individual polls with a suspicious eye and gave arguments to why the methodology in one of them is flawed.

Wonder if they have a version in Morocco.

But the methodology of looking at the same cohort over time isn't flawed. When I looked more closely at the USC poll earlier in the summer, the margin of error was large enough to include zero percent African American support for Trump. That's not uniquely flawed, it just relies on a small sample size in certain demographics that makes it more susceptible to outliers. Other polls do the same thing; odds are that one of them is going to get 'burned' by it.

Meanwhile at the 'Blacks for Trump' tent:

"I thought YOU brought the black guy" pic.twitter.com/Hr8p0ul6gj

— JustJanis (@jsavite) October 12, 2016

Maybe their last names are Black.

LOL!!! FTW!

That's similar to a great joke Seth Meyers told at the White House Correspondents dinner...

"Donald Trump said recently he has a great relationship with the blacks, but unless the Blacks are a family of white people, I bet he is mistaken."

It was only a matter of time before Gloria Allred got involved.

Listening to Trump's rhetoric in recent speeches, he is whipping people into an angry frenzy and encouraging them to violence. There are absolutely going to be incidents at polling stations and more generally if Clinton wins.

To quote a famous Republican:








Oh you guys! :D

Trump spent 20 minutes today at one of the rallies wondering why Obama doesn't get the same amount of accusations aimed at him..

Mainly because he isn't a narcissist who thinks with his Johnson, or if he does, tries to actually pretend he isn't?

I look at it this way, elected or not, Trump's going to single-handedly drive economic growth in the legal sector. We should all be very grateful.

Welp



from a 1998 interview with Chris Matthews on CNBC in which Trump was asked if he'd ever run for president

OMG. I just don't even know what to say anymore. So the first round of evidence Trump has released is a witness to debunk the airplane story...

Trump camp puts forward witness to refute sex assault claim | New York Post

Nothing groundbreaking in there. Just he said, she said stuff that Twitter could argue about forever. But then there's this. Two years earlier, this same guy made this accusation:

Tory child abuse whistleblower: 'I supplied underage rent boys for Margaret Thatcher's cabinet ministers' - Mirror Online

This is who the Trump campaign used as their witness. I'm almost more offended at his incompetence than his lack of character.