Guys, FYI, this is not spam. We thought it would be funny to build an auto feed of Trump's tweets and are tweaking how to do that best. You don't need to report the post.

I wondered... :)

I *tried* to get them to post in this thread. I'll see if they become more annoying or entertaining. I moved the most recent one, but moving forward, I'l probably just leave them as their own threads.

#TrumpBookReport might be my new favorite hashtag of all time. It started from a comment someone made about Trump's foreign policy answers during the debate sounding like a high school kid's book report, when they didn't read the book.

"John 3:16 - Worst deal of all time. Total disaster. We need better salvation deals. Gave up his only begotten son. Sad!" #TrumpBookReport

Man in Yellow Hat? Total loser. Couldn't even control a monkey. By the way, that monkey? Illegal immigrant. Bad hombre. #TrumpBookReport

Les Miserables, of course they are miserable, the inner city is a mess folks, believe me. People stealing bread everywhere. #TrumpBookReport

Don Quixote? Great book. Bigly. Fight windmills, focus on coal energy. I don't like Sancho, though. Bad hombre. Deport! #TrumpBookReport

Achilles. What a failure. Weak heels. Only I can take Troy. And I do not have weak heels. My heels are so good. Believe me. #TrumpBookReport

Lolita? In six years, I'll be dating her. #TrumpBookReport

Sauron. I know him. Good guy. The best. Just trying to build things. Has his home destroyed by immigrants. Sad. #TrumpBookReport

If anybody else did it, it'd be considered spamming the board. But hey, it's your toy so play with it as you see fit I guess.

Pretty lame though.

King Hamlet was low energy. No stamina. Sad. King Claudius will make Denmark great again.

Is there a way to block them from showing up?

Add Trump Twitter Auto-Post to Your Ignore List

They still show up.

It's fantastic... here are some of mine:

Harry Potter. So weak. His mother had to protect him. Sad. Voldemort is a good guy. I'd make him the best deal. Believe me. #TrumpBookReport

— ISiddiqui (@ISiddiqui) October 20, 2016

I got a lot of rings. Many rings. Beautiful rings. Sauron likes my rings, ok? Who is vetting these Hobbits? Dangerous. #TrumpBookReport

— ISiddiqui (@ISiddiqui) October 20, 2016

Westeros has a big wall. HUGE Wall. Gorgeous Wall! The Night's Watch endorsed me. Not Crooked Daenerys. Nice dragons though #TrumpBookReport

— ISiddiqui (@ISiddiqui) October 20, 2016

Jesus on the cross? Weak. So weak. Good news? Wrong. The Romans do the best crucifixitions. I could have held out though. #TrumpBookReport

— ISiddiqui (@ISiddiqui) October 20, 2016

It's pretty ridiculous.

Can't be worse than having to put up with Jon's shit all these years.

Eh, I'll give the guy credit. I may find his views repugnant but he is pretty damn good at stepping back and analyzing polls and trends and such stuff without said repugnant views clouding his analysis.

I probably disagree with him 99.9% of the time but I enjoy reading his stuff on a pretty wide variety of topics.

Ditto this. I disagree with Jon on a ton of political points, but I always value his insights and input.

A 93-page list of Donald Trump's charitable contributions from the last five years - The Washington Post

Page 9. May 13th, 2015. A $10,000 donation to Project Veritas (James O'Keefe), one month before he entered the Republican Primary.

Towards bottom of page 1, Clinton Foundation.

Trump gets basically booed off stage at the Al Smith dinner tonight, then Clinton spends the next little bit Chaos Dunking him and all his folks.

Trump Jokes Strike Sour Tone at Al Smith Dinner - Bloomberg Politics

Dola: About 24 hours from the last debate, Weird Al hits perfectly.

BAD HOMBRES, NASTY WOMEN (ft. "Weird Al" Yankovic)- Songify 2016! - YouTube

One of the more interesting house districts is NH-01. (I did remote organizing for the 2014 race there). Obama beat Romney by 1 in 2012.

2006 - Carol Shea-Porter beat incumbent Jeb Bradley in the Dem wave.
2008 - Shea-Porter held on to that seat against Frank Guinta.
2010 - Guinta beat her in the GOP wave.
2012 - Shea-Porter beat Guinta to win the seat back.
2014 - Guinta beat her to win the seat back.
2016 - Shea-Porter and Guinta are facing off for the 5th consecutive election. He narrowly won his primary after some ethics difficulties. RCP has it listed as Lean Dem. My guess is she wins again, but probably loses it back in 2018, probably to someone other than Guinta.

That's pretty much how I view Jon's posts - I like reading the 'other side' of debates and trying to understand their perspective so I'm pleased he's active here, even if I tend to disagree heavily with his stance I appreciate having access to it :)

Ditto

I also think the feed is stupid.

The number of people on my Facebook feed who interpreted last night's Al Smith dinner as finally taking the gloves off and socking it to their opponent for realz just reinforces how stupid our electorate is.

File this in the things you shouldn't say file:


Kansas State Rep. on Hitler/Planned Parenthood

I feel like America just wants politics to be real versions of the Hamilton Debate Battles.

Hot Take: The internet has destroyed America and may be the single most destructive thing humanity has ever created.

I've felt this way for a while.

I just said the same thing to my son this week. And I wonder if it's elitist of me that I've begun to think that the democratization of communication is a bad thing.

Either you adhere to the will of the people or you don't. Controlling communication would be "you don't". That's an indictment on Democracy and humanity, not the internet.

I've long said eventually we will need a dictator to keep the country on rails, if we get to that point hopefully it's not one in the mold of Trump.

Jeff are you implying that the communication as it stands now is "controlled" and "not the will?" And our collective voices are being muted by government shills?

Or is that you feel like the current vein of communication IS the will, which to me, seems to be much more accurate? If only in the vein that you have enough communication out there that certainly comes from "the people (as opposed to the government)" that is should be construed as of the people. So that, of the people, is far worse, because it allows so much dissent and festering of opposing views that it hardens until open conflict is achieved.

I was responding to the previous few posts that seemed to imply the internet is a threat to mankind.

The internet enables and empowers citizens. If enabling and empowering citizens leads to poor leaders and policies being put in place, the issue is with Democracy(and humanity) and not the internet.

In short, I agree with your latter statement and was commenting on the idea of needing to control communication in order to ensure survival of our society as it exists today. Once you start controlling communication in order to have more control over the leaders and policies being put in place, you are no longer a Democracy. Even if it is for the better.

I strongly disagree. There's a reason that when big shit goes down in other countries one of the first things they try to do is shut down the Internet.

It does empower governments, but the power citizens gain from being able to communicate as freely as the Internet allows dwarfs it.

It's an exceptionally slippery slope. If it empowers your own it also empowers enemies which creates the need for more control by the government for your protection....or is it?

That's the rub.

pic.twitter.com/IdzrJTaAqF

— AlecBaldwin (@AlecBaldwin) October 21, 2016

Trump may come across as a buffoon, but this is a good line:

“The media is even more biased against me than ever before,” Trump said. “You want the proof? Michelle Obama gives a speech and everyone loves it. It’s fantastic. They think she’s absolutely great. My wife, Melania, gives the exact same speech! And people get on her case! And I don’t get it! I don’t know why!”

I thought the, "pardon me," joke was funny too, it was the second half where he veered off into old conspiracy theories and saying Hillary hated Catholics where he went off the rails.

I thought the latter well worked rather than proper funny, but I otherwise agree :)

Yeah, he had several good jokes. Where he lost it was when he started doing attacks that had no punchline. "You're corrupt, haha." "You hate Catholics, haha."

Personal anecdote:

My wife voted absentee today. In her house vote, she voted for a candidate who literally fucked over her profession last session. He had promised her state board that he would vote in their favor on a bill, then voted the opposite way at the actual vote. They lost 52-51. His office then refused to meet with them or then answer the phone. My wife is also now the state board's VP for her profession.

When I asked why she voted for him, she said because what was she going to do, vote for a Democrat? She said she couldn't do it with a clear conscience because of abortion and the like. We're Catholic, but obviously I have a different view on prioritizing my vote.

In other words, I think a lot of people underestimate just how important the "religious" component factors into a large percentage of the vote. My wife quite literally hates the candidate she voted for, and he directly fucked her profession and harmed her career, but even that isn't enough to lose her vote if the opponent isn't 100% lined up with her religious views.

BTW, I'm fairly certain she voted Trump, even though she agrees he's a complete loon and buffoon... but again, she was never voting Hillary, but was completely turned off by her abortion answer the other night. After that, not voting because she hated Trump was just as bad to her as voting for Hillary.

See, here's why I'd want to smack people like that upside the head (and it has nothing to do with the validity of pro-choice versus that of pro-life):

There are a super-finite number of people in this country who are actually in a position to do anything meaningful regarding abortion.

The House of Representatives are not those people. Even if Republicans got 291 House members to agree to a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe, they'd need 67 senators to do the same.

And THEN they'd need 37 or 38 state legislatures - both houses - to do the same.

The House neither nominates nor approves judicial candidates, so there isn't even THAT veneer to cling to on the issue of abortion. Literally the extent of their say in the matter is federal funding, and federal law already prohibits spending federal dollars on abortion.

So at that level, it amounts to little more than voting to fuck you and yours over on the other 99% of issues for the sake of "voting my conscience" on the one issue your Congresscritter isn't actually poised to have any meaningful influence over.

Which just blows my mind.

It does not matter whether the civil government can affect change, if one believes in the sanctity of life and that of the unborn child (and you believe it is paramount moral issue), then you should vote against* such immorality. It is the attitude of the heart that is the deciding factor for single-issue voters (which there are many).

* that does not assume a vote for an opposer.

Okay, but here's where you start running into problems:

Picture a politician. This politician may, or may not, be religious. To which faith our imaginary politician adheres is irrelevant, but given the demographics of this country, it's a safe bet that this politician belongs to a Christian sect.

Our politician is running for the House; the House, as we've discussed, has a minimal impact on the existence of and performance of abortions in this country, beyond the sort of grandstanding designed to get re-elected.

Let's be generous and say our politician is fervently pro-life. Like, this isn't just a cynical red-meat-for-the-base issue. At the same time, our politician ran on "we're spending too much" and "it's not Washington's money" and wants to reduce taxes, cut foreign aid and reduce the footprint of the welfare state (cut food stamps, energy assistance, housing assistance, etc). (This is not, by the way, much in the way of caricature.)

Our pro-life Congressperson is fighting the good fight against abortion in the name of Jeremiah 1:5. At the same time, Matthew 25:40 tells the faithful what God's reaction is going to be to those who spurned the helpless - say, by cutting food stamps to justify tax cuts.

Perhaps our Congressperson is Muslim. Surah 5:32 would inform our Congressperson that "whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."

That $32 billion we spend in foreign aid yearly - pennies on the dollar relative to our national budget - saves lives around the world. Between Matthew 25:40 and Surah 5:32, can you *really* make the honest argument that a vote cast for someone who abhors abortion, but cannot prevent it, is a more moral vote than that cast for a pro-choice candidate (who is likewise powerless to make abortion more readily available) who also supports continued foreign aid and anti-poverty programs?

It seems to me that somebody who casts a vote based on morality is probably better off casting that vote on the basis of the morality which their intended candidate can actually promote.

Then, too, we might have a conversation about how people who seek abortions do so most often for economic reasons, and that a candidate who addresses those causes, even as he or she may be "pro-choice," and even if the reason he or she tackles poverty has nothing to do with abortion, is better placed to help fulfill the desires of the voter who prioritizes the life of the fetus above any other single issue.

And if I were really feeling cynical, I might further point out that somebody who claims to value life highly enough to make it their overriding electoral issue, but votes for candidates who don't sustain that priority beyond gestation is like the hypocrites alluded to in Matthew 6:5 - they're not interested in doing the hard work of "what comes next." They want to stand on the street corners and be seen "protecting the sanctity of life."

Couple of things in response, Sack:

1) I think for a lot of voters who are single-issue (perhaps even the majority), they view the narrative on the other issues differently than they do abortion.

2) You may be underestimating how critical their issue is to single-issue voters. As an example, if I were a single issue voter on my gun issue stances, I would be voting almost exclusively Republican - despite the fact that if you took my political stances overall, I'd be left of center. (Interestingly enough, I realized the other day that while I'm considered a progressive, that's only so because on my three primary issues of education, environment, and certain branches of economics, I fall completely in the progressive camp).

Maybe, but I'm not sure how much that matters.


The thing is, I'm not underestimating how critical it is to them. I'm saying that - particularly in the case of abortion - that single issue is a complex one, and voting reflexively Republican because "abortions are bad mmkay" means supporting people who are ALSO frequently opposed to other things which might be part of the solution.

Barack Obama said in 2008 that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare." You know how you get the "rare" part of the equation? You address the issues that lead women to seek abortions. Some abortion bans have been tossed because they don't make exceptions for rape and incest, for example.

But then there's the socioeconomic question - something like 70% of all women who have their pregnancies terminated have an income below 200% of the federal poverty line.

So the question becomes: why? Is it because they look at their income status, see a baby on the way, and terminate it because they can't afford to miss work, either before or after the birth? The cost of actually birthing the child? The cost of raising that child, including things like child care costs because they're less likely to have a post-birth support structure?

Or is it because contraceptives are expensive, and when politicians go after the funding for places like Planned Parenthood, it reduces low-income access to contraceptives?

Is it somewhere in the middle?

There are layers of complexity to the issue that go beyond "in the womb I knew ye" but single-issue pro-life voters don't consider that.

The way I look at it is, "pro-choice" means the woman has the right to choose life. For those of us who are pro-choice AND would actively prefer the woman choose life, the way to accomplish those goals is to make it easier for her to do so.

Blanket abortion bans without a thought for what comes next doesn't solve society's problems. It enhances them. When people like Donald Trump rail against the "inner cities" and how awful crime is there, the issue isn't some inherent character flaw that creates "thugs." It's poverty.

And when you blithely pursue abstinence-only education in schools because teaching teens how to be safe and, critically, not-pregnant, is immoral and an affront to God, you wind up with increased pregnancy rates because the education you've given the kids has had exactly the effect anybody could have predicted: they don't know jack shit. More babies in poverty-stricken areas means more crime in the long run.

Fix poverty, and you fix a whole wealth of problems. Voting for someone because they want to ban abortion is voting for someone who says they revere life but doesn't actually want to do anything to show that reverence.

"By their fruit shall you know them."

It's one thing to have strong religious views. It's quite another thing entirely to feel that your religious views should trump the strongly held beliefs on personal liberty held by literally 100M+ Americans.

Such a good post, Sack. I have been banging my head on this for 3 decades. Pro-life people really vote against their own interest in a multitude of other areas in the name of that one issue.

Or exceptions for cases like these:

https://thinkprogress.org/woman-abor...p-108b90382228

Interview With a Woman Who Recently Had an Abortion at 32 Weeks

Even some christian groups says Clinton would be better than Trump on this, and provide backup for what they say:

Hillary Clinton Is the Best Choice for Voters Against Abortion

Agree or disagree, Trump is sounding presidential in his policy speech.

Suspect his polls will creep up and the spread will tighten. HRC needs to bait (or find another negative surprise) and get a Trump reaction a couple more times to keep his negatives front and center.