How will Trump handle losing the election?

@oralloy,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Here are his words:

Quote:

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," he declared.

Please tell me what the proper meaning of them would be.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

blatham wrote:

We are going to see a LOT of this one up the road.

Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
On Nov 8, Clinton's claims of a mandate will fly in the face of reality. She only won by not being Trump.
5:41 AM - 19 Oct 2016

I think that there are a few things that will counter that claim.

1) Clinton is running as a continuation of Obama's policies. These are policies that voters have chosen the past two elections. Add to this the continuing demographic changes.

2) The Republicans have a problem claiming any sort of mandate themselves. They are backed up against a wall. They have earned the image of a party of obstructionism. Digging in their heals against Hillary after 8 years of obstruction is going to continue the political hurt for themselves.

3) The Democrats are likely to take the Senate. Even a Democratic House is now a possibility.

4) Hillary has fully outlined her policies. Hopefully Clinton will spend tonight's debate and the final three weeks to drive her policy vision home.

I don't think this is going to fly. I think you are going to see a section of the Republican party wanting to be reasonable and work with a Hillary Clinton administration. The question is how self-destructive the other part of the GOP will be.

Either way, Hillary Clinton comes into office with a great deal of political capital.

I wrote this well thought out post that is reasoned, on topic, and respectfully ecpressed. It got at least 7 down thumbs.

That doesn't bother a troll of course, but it is amusing. The people whining about trolls don't want reasoned discussion about the topic.

Maybe whining about trolls is what people really are here for. In that case they should be grateful there are still trolls for them to whine about.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

And group think is defined by you as disagreeing with your thoughts?

1 Reply

No problem. Obama just signed a presidential order exiling the loser forever per Borwitz.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Here are his words:

Quote:
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," he declared.

Please tell me what the proper meaning of them would be.

He could mean that they will vote against the nominee without blocking a vote from taking place.

Easy for a senator to cast a no vote. Not so easy to prevent a prominent vote from occurring over a period of years without any reason.

I'm not sure that McCain has the authority to speak for all Republican senators in this matter. Some may not agree with him no matter which way he meant the statement to be taken.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Does that 54 minute video (that I don't care to watch; can you provide some highlights?) address the statements made by the two most powerful republicans before the 2010 election?

The statements might have been mentioned in passing. But the show is mostly about the actual compromise effort that took place after the election.

Highlights:

Boehner proposed a wide-ranging budget deal with Obama that would have both raised taxes and cut spending. Obama opened secret negotiations, and they eventually struck a deal.

When the Republican hardliners found out, they were unhappy but reluctantly agreed to go along with the deal.

When the Democratic hardliners found out, they demanded that Obama raise taxes even more.

Obama caved in to the hardliners and backed out of the earlier deal and demanded higher taxes.

Boehner didn't like it (especially after they had already agreed to the earlier deal), but since he really wanted the deal to take place, he agreed to try to sell the Republicans on the new terms.

Republican hardliners refused to agree to the new terms. All negotiations collapsed and everyone started publicly blaming everyone else.

Republican hardliners lined up the votes to depose Boehner if he agreed to any deal with Obama.

Mr. Obama then attempted to resurrect the original deal that he had first agreed to and then backed out of, but by this time Boehner was powerless to agree to it anymore.

maporsche wrote:

Those same statements that directly contradict your claim that they wanted to work with Obama?

A statement made during an election to rally the voters does not erase a history of attempted compromise after the election.

And the statement from McConnell is being taken WAY out of context. That a party leader would want his party to win the next presidential election is perfectly normal and not even remotely nefarious.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

And group think is defined by you as disagreeing with your thoughts?

The problem is the personal attacks and ad hominems. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my thoughts. By "group think" I am referring to the group of people here who make pretty nasty attacks on people who express ideas they don't like rather than responding rationally.

If you disagree without the need to make personal attacks, I have no problem with you. If you do so in a way that I feel is reasoned and fact-based, I will engage you,

Ironically, I am mostly politically in agreement with Setanta and Glitterbag and Izzy. I just don't agree with the deliberate effort to shut out opposing voices with personal attacks.

0 Replies

Why does the Clinton campaign think people will not fact check them?

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I'm not sure what other class of individual or what profession you might deem more worthy of attending to in these matters.

Very likely, this will not impress you: I rely upon my own judgment, having studied history since I was a small boy, and having followed every election campaign since 1960. In short, I don't rely on pundits, I rely upon myself.

Journalists, over time, both in my lifetime and in the historical record, have shown themselves to be the bottom feeders of the literary world. They are like intellectual mud puddles--modestly broad, and very shallow. They rush out to get a little, a very little knowledge, when a new situation or personality or region crops up on the wire services, and then pretend to possess knowledge which they do not in fact possess. They almost always have an agenda, either their own, or that of whoever signs their paychecks.

I'm sure you have a low opinion of my judgment, you've shown that in the past. I'm fine with that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I'm sure you have a low opinion of my judgment, you've shown that in the past. I'm fine with that.

From wherever you got that notion, I truly have no idea. But as regards your historical knowledge, which certainly exceeds mine in most ways, you aren't alone in having that background. You share it with many of the people I read and attend to.

The negative description you make of journalists is commonly valid. But the folks who match that description aren't of much interest to me. Jane Mayer doesn't match it. Rick Perlstein doesn't match it. James Fallows doesn't match it. Ed Kilgore doesn't match it. Etc.

Do you attend to Jay Rosen's blog Pressthink?

1 Reply

@blatham,

I find bloggers as the true bottom feeders. If you read some blogs on diverse subjects, you see the same ideas and phrases over and over. Bloggers, IMHO, go no further than each other to gather their facts. They are like bunch of gunga snakes passing off crap that they just read and they "Byline their crap" without any analyses.
Lazy bastards they are (mostly).

Even my beloved evolution blogs like Panda's Thumb, Sandwalk, and(less frequently) Talk Origins -Talk Origins, since its an archive of past writing, doesnt have a big backlog of science sycophants."PleinAir Art" and Carpentry blogs are some of the funniest (to me anyway). Carpentry seems to follow "fads of craft". (Like the present bullshit craft of building junk out of pallet wood), thats hilarious and from Carpentry, Woodworkers journal and **** like Pinterest, folks copy from other bloggers, dress yup their posts with cheap window dressing and hope it goes viral.

I think weve reached the end of creativity and the rise of lazy bs artists in the internet.

2 Replies

I know its off topic but , interminable copying of blog spots and posting them as "fact" about all the **** going on with Hillary and Trump, is so fuckin loaded with mendacity that I can smell the mendacity all the way out here in the country.
Yessah, whole lotta mendacity goin own.

1 Reply

The first blog I ever read was from Orson Scott Card. It was full of more crap than a Kansas feed lot. But what I saw next gave me pause. There were dozens and dozens of responses, they were in the nature of uncritical adulation, and by their time stamps, they were made within about an hour. So I knew Card had a following for whom his every word was a pearl of wisdom, for which they waited each day with breath abated. I had little interest in blogs thereafter, and when i have bothered to read any since, my contempt had just been reinforced.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I see your point, fm.

I've liked a bunch of food blogs over time, some connected to papers, some to cookbook authors, some from chefs, and sometimes a person is all three of those. There's a guy I read whose cooking is wildly different than mine (he's a smart one), but I like reading him for the occasional simple ideas that I can catch on to, a kind of food porn, or corn. (Yotam Ottolenghi) Food can be quite different in England.. starting with fish that I'm not used to.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

Hah, I didn't know this about him:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/12/03/the-philosopher-chef

and the article is written by Jane Kramer, whom I've learned a lot from over a lot of years re her own writing (food is only one of her interests). Jane is a snappy writer, whether or not we'd agree on matters. If anyone wonders, I'm not all happygirl re Israel these days.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

I'm still not done with the article, which gets more interesting as it goes along.
Debate time.
I may finish the article instead.

1 Reply

Oh. Now, this is funny. Roger Ailes has abandoned the Trump ship on the DAY OF the final debate.

Ousted Fox News head Roger Ailes and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump have fallen out and are no longer speaking, sources say.

Emily Jane Fox of Vanity Fair reported on Wednesday that New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman and Vanity Fair editor Sarah Ellison have both been informed that the longtime friends Trump and Ailes are no longer on good terms, but the reasons for the parting of ways vary according to who you ask.

“Ailes’s camp said Ailes learned that Trump couldn’t focus — surprise, surprise — and that advising him was a waste of time,” Sherman said Tuesday morning at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit. “These debate prep sessions weren’t going anywhere.”

Ellison said that the Trump camp’s position is that Ailes was useless during debate prep.

“Even for the second debate, Ailes kept going off on tangents and talking about his war stories while he was supposed to be prepping Trump,” she said.

The souring of the two men’s formerly collegial relationship could have implications for Trump’s purported ambition to start his own TV network, Trump TV. When Ailes began advising the campaign — within weeks of his separation from Fox News — many media watchers speculated that Ailes was part of Trump’s TV team, along with campaign CEO and Breitbart.com executive Steve Bannon.

The rupture in the men’s years-long friendship comes just as Trump is weathering the storm of an ever-expanding sexual harassment scandal. The accusations against Trump are remarkably similar to those which ended Ailes’ reign atop Fox News. Both men are accused by multiple women of making unwanted sexual advances, inappropriate touching and kissing, fondling and coercion.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/roger-ailes-breaks-away-from-waste-of-time-trump-just-before-the-final-debate/

1 Reply

@snood,

Qu0te article:

Quote:

Ellison said that the Trump camp’s position is that Ailes was useless during debate prep.

The Trump camp is wrong. Under Ailes' direction, Trump made it through the first half hour using normal facial expressions, before lapsing into the vast array of seemingly involuntary facial gymnastics he employs when someone besides himself is speaking. That's a great deal of progress right there.

0 Replies

Alright Donald. You know what time it is. You brought this on yourself. Stop whining like a loud mouth drooling baby. You are not going to be president. Open that big lying mouth of yours. It's time to eat crow.

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/trumpbaby.jpg

0 Replies

@maporsche,

When you think about it, that is such an irresponsible pledge given the present court vacancy and the ages of some of the judges on the court now. There should be a new law about how long Senators can hold up court vacancies because if McCain keeps his pledge, four years plus the months now since Scalia died is too long to have a Supreme court vacancy.

Quote:

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," he declared.

1 Reply

How will Trump handle losing the election?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know