2016 Presidential Race

[Pruitt]

From what I've read, her columns are 10% about what they are nominally about and 90% about what a clever writer she is.

Is she related to Dave Eggers?

Fuck you. Dave Eggers is awesome.

Not to threadjack, but I would be interested in your thoughts as to why he is awesome. Because I really don't see it.

I wouldn't call Eggers "awesome," but I have read three of his books, and one was good - "Zeitoun," one was really good - "A Hologram For The King," and one is absolutely fantastic - "What Is The What."

[Nonlinear FC]

I am being ridiculous because the other side is ridiculous and are fucking wingnuts. And that's who the speech is for. The speech isn't for people like us.

No. It's not. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm seeing a lot this cycle. The convention and what you'll see over the next 3 months is not directed at the fucktwit insane racist moron base Trump has locked up. It is about chipping away at the sane middle, holding up a mirror and saying "do you really want this guy in office."

A slight tweak of this message is directed at the Bernie folks. But no one is trying to convince the fucking wingnuts of anything.

[The Sybian]

It's insane.

That's the rub. What would President Trump do when he gets protesters like Cindy Sheehan protesting outside of one of his residences? How would he respond to someone like the mother of the State Dept guy killed at Benghazi who spoke at the RNC? He'd go off the rails insulting them, probably sue them, and make bizarre personal attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if he used a government agency to go after the person. Tax audits, denying some sort of permit, trying to take away some sort of government benefits. Any agency employee refusing to do his bidding would be shitcanned, and replaced with a sycophant who will.

[HDO45331]

I am being ridiculous because the other side is ridiculous and are fucking wingnuts. And that's who the speech is for. The speech isn't for people like us.

No. It's not. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm seeing a lot this cycle. The convention and what you'll see over the next 3 months is not directed at the fucktwit insane racist moron base Trump has locked up. It is about chipping away at the sane middle, holding up a mirror and saying "do you really want this guy in office."

A slight tweak of this message is directed at the Bernie folks. But no one is trying to convince the fucking wingnuts of anything.

Over the weekend, out here, in the heartland, there were bags of white rice, with KKK advertising, thrown on driveways. Well, I do live in Darke County, one of the reddest counties in Ohio, but still......

[degenerasian]

I am being ridiculous because the other side is ridiculous and are fucking wingnuts. And that's who the speech is for. The speech isn't for people like us.

No. It's not. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm seeing a lot this cycle. The convention and what you'll see over the next 3 months is not directed at the fucktwit insane racist moron base Trump has locked up. It is about chipping away at the sane middle, holding up a mirror and saying "do you really want this guy in office."

A slight tweak of this message is directed at the Bernie folks. But no one is trying to convince the fucking wingnuts of anything.

True but I think the Democrats still have to try to pick at and dislodge the locked up wingnuts. As futile as that may seem.

But you know what? It's worked out even better. Trump the child that he is took the 'non-speaking Muslim women" bait easily and it's worked out great for the Democrats.

[Nonlinear FC]

I am being ridiculous because the other side is ridiculous and are fucking wingnuts. And that's who the speech is for. The speech isn't for people like us.

No. It's not. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm seeing a lot this cycle. The convention and what you'll see over the next 3 months is not directed at the fucktwit insane racist moron base Trump has locked up. It is about chipping away at the sane middle, holding up a mirror and saying "do you really want this guy in office."

A slight tweak of this message is directed at the Bernie folks. But no one is trying to convince the fucking wingnuts of anything.

True but I think the Democrats still have to try to pick at and dislodge the locked up wingnuts. As futile as that may seem.

Statistically, they really don't. If, as you correctly pointed out earlier, the Bernie or Bust folks pull their heads out, you just need to grab a chunk of the middle and she'll sail.

Really, it's futile and not worth the money/effort. You're not going to convince racist assholes to vote for a woman and effectively give a black guy a third term. Just not happening.

[brian]

History may well show that this was Trump's Waterloo.

When you've lost the VFW....

[sancarlos]

From what I've read, her columns are 10% about what they are nominally about and 90% about what a clever writer she is.

Is she related to Dave Eggers?

Fuck you. Dave Eggers is awesome.

Not to threadjack, but I would be interested in your thoughts as to why he is awesome. Because I really don't see it.

Maureen Dowd is clearly self-important. Dave Eggers is clearly a good person, and imho, a great writer. He's a good person because of a long list of charitable and altruistic endeavors. He's comfortable writing fiction or non-fiction. Pruitt noted some of his good/great books, but did not include the one that I think is his best, the facetiously titled A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, which also details the fact that this guy did it the hard way, without a lot of help. Unlike Maureen Dowd, his writing isn't cloying or conceited. He's just a really fine writer. And, clearly, I'm not in the minority in this opinion, given all the honors he's received. He's highly valued out here in SF, where he lives.

[P.D.X.]

True but I think the Democrats still have to try to pick at and dislodge the locked up wingnuts. As futile as that may seem.

No.

[The Sybian]

I am being ridiculous because the other side is ridiculous and are fucking wingnuts. And that's who the speech is for. The speech isn't for people like us.

No. It's not. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that I'm seeing a lot this cycle. The convention and what you'll see over the next 3 months is not directed at the fucktwit insane racist moron base Trump has locked up. It is about chipping away at the sane middle, holding up a mirror and saying "do you really want this guy in office."

A slight tweak of this message is directed at the Bernie folks. But no one is trying to convince the fucking wingnuts of anything.

The message should be directed at the swing voters, but the RNC and Trump's campaign have been heavily aimed at the wingnut base. Just about everything I saw from the convention was screaming about terrorists killing us all, Benghazi, Obama leaving us on the edge of a cliff to destruction, and we can't afford 4 more years of Obama's policies. I heard no policy plans or logical appeals to vote for Trump. It seems like Trump is relying on a cult of personality, getting votes because he is the most terrific, best, unbelievable, man ever. Trump's personality isn't going to win over the sane Rs, undecided Hillary hating Ds, or Bernie Bros. He tried to court Bernie Bros, but fell incredibly flat. IMO, Trump got a lot of attention and momentum when he said stupid, racist shit like Mexico is sending over their murderers and rapists, so he kept on appealing to the wingnuts. He never got any backlash for saying insane things, so he kept taking it further. I have to believe this is serving to drive some sane Rs away from him. Trump doesn't stand for anything Conservatives stand for, so IMO, this shows that the base of the Republican Party don't truly give a fuck about Conservative principles, they just gravitate towards authoritarian leaders, fear mongering, anger towards "the other group," and racism.

[A_B]

From what I've read, her columns are 10% about what they are nominally about and 90% about what a clever writer she is.

Is she related to Dave Eggers?

Fuck you. Dave Eggers is awesome.

Not to threadjack, but I would be interested in your thoughts as to why he is awesome. Because I really don't see it.

Maureen Dowd is clearly self-important. Dave Eggers is clearly a good person, and imho, a great writer. He's a good person because of a long list of charitable and altruistic endeavors. He's comfortable writing fiction or non-fiction. Pruitt noted some of his good/great books, but did not include the one that I think is his best, the facetiously titled A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, which also details the fact that this guy did it the hard way, without a lot of help. Unlike Maureen Dowd, his writing isn't cloying or conceited. He's just a really fine writer. And, clearly, I'm not in the minority in this opinion, given all the honors he's received. He's highly valued out here in SF, where he lives.

Hmmm. Cause I think his writing is terribly conceited and navel-gazing. He has talent, for sure. So did Faulker, who got a lot of honors. I hate Fualkner with the passion of a thousand white hot suns. Maybe just not my cup of tea. I thought A heartbreaking Work.. fizzled badly, to the point that I was angry at him by the end. And Zetioun...oooh boy.

Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming!

[Joe K]

Not sure what Trump thinks he's gaining by getting into a public fight with this family. It's hard to believe he's this thin-skinned.

It's almost as if the Islamophobia that is so common in this country -- and is currently taken furthest by the Trump campaign -- is less about terrorism and national security than it is about pure bigotry and hatred of any and all Muslims. For people like Trump, the fact the Khans are Muslims necessarily disqualifies them from being true patriots or Americans.

[The Sybian]

True but I think the Democrats still have to try to pick at and dislodge the locked up wingnuts. As futile as that may seem.

But you know what? It's worked out even better. Trump the child that he is took the 'non-speaking Muslim women" bait easily and it's worked out great for the Democrats.

No way. Hillary doesn't get a single wingnut to vote for her, and if she was dumb enough to try, she would lose votes. Trump attacking Mrs. Khan for not speaking is red meat to the Muslim-hating wingnuts. Despite being so gung ho pro-military and supporting the troops, they are cheering Trump on for being non-PC and "telling it like it is" by trashing the Khans. The wingnuts have been rabidly hating Hillary for 25 years, nothing she could ever do or say will ever change their minds about her, and the crazier Trump goes, the more they love him. They crave authoritarian rule that will oppress the "others." They actually believe Trump will make America Great, and voting against Trump is voting to destroy America and everything they value. They actually believe Trump will crush China, Korea and Japan economically, bringing jobs and prosperity. They crave the tough talk about torturing and killing the innocent families of ISIS fighters, carpet bombing cities where ISIS fighters might be. Anything else is weakness. Negotiating with Iran was treasonous. Rational diplomacy is treasonous when you could drop bombs instead.

Liberal is a dirty word to the wingnuts. Liberalism is a mental illness, and Liberals are trying to destroy the country, hand over the country to the Islamofascists, enable the poor by giving handouts, so they can eat steak and lobster every night, leaching off of their hard earned dollars. Just curious, but how do you think Hillary could attempt to pry some wingnuts from Trump?

[degenerasian]

True but I think the Democrats still have to try to pick at and dislodge the locked up wingnuts. As futile as that may seem.

But you know what? It's worked out even better. Trump the child that he is took the 'non-speaking Muslim women" bait easily and it's worked out great for the Democrats.

No way. Hillary doesn't get a single wingnut to vote for her, and if she was dumb enough to try, she would lose votes. Trump attacking Mrs. Khan for not speaking is red meat to the Muslim-hating wingnuts. Despite being so gung ho pro-military and supporting the troops, they are cheering Trump on for being non-PC and "telling it like it is" by trashing the Khans. The wingnuts have been rabidly hating Hillary for 25 years, nothing she could ever do or say will ever change their minds about her, and the crazier Trump goes, the more they love him. They crave authoritarian rule that will oppress the "others." They actually believe Trump will make America Great, and voting against Trump is voting to destroy America and everything they value. They actually believe Trump will crush China, Korea and Japan economically, bringing jobs and prosperity. They crave the tough talk about torturing and killing the innocent families of ISIS fighters, carpet bombing cities where ISIS fighters might be. Anything else is weakness. Negotiating with Iran was treasonous. Rational diplomacy is treasonous when you could drop bombs instead.

Liberal is a dirty word to the wingnuts. Liberalism is a mental illness, and Liberals are trying to destroy the country, hand over the country to the Islamofascists, enable the poor by giving handouts, so they can eat steak and lobster every night, leaching off of their hard earned dollars. Just curious, but how do you think Hillary could attempt to pry some wingnuts from Trump?

I don't think there are that many wingnuts. There are definitely people on the borderline of wingnuttiness. Perhaps I'm naive and don't understand the American landscape today. As was stated earlier Trump will get 40%. How many of those are real wingnuts and how many just have to vote for him because it says (R) beside his name. Can Hillary at least pry those people away? Can she make Liberal a less dirty word? At least less dirtier than the word Trump?

[P.D.X.]

Exactly. It makes sense to spend resources going after the more centrist Repubs, not the wing nuts. That's the standard MO for campaigns of both sides, usually.

[Nonlinear FC]

Exactly. It makes sense to spend resources going after the more centrist Repubs, not the wing nuts. That's the standard MO for campaigns of both sides, usually.

Exactly, and yet another reason the Trump campaign is so off-putting and unsettling is that they are basically saying "fuck it, let's see if we can win with just the xenophobes and enough that hate Hillary so much they'd vote for an Orc." That's just not how it's done.

And, degen, what you are kind of underestimating is that for 30-40 years, the type of shit you are seeing in this campaign in terms of racism and xenophobia has been what is described as dog-whistle politics. You don't come right out and say things, but you use buzz and code words and imagery and it makes enough of a point that those looking for it know what they true meaning of the campaign is all about.

Trump and his campaign are the evolved nature of 20 or so years of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Fox News increasingly saying, "fuck it, enough with the subtlety, let's just straight up give voice to the bigots and xenophobes and tap into the fear and racism and misogyny they know exists in huge numbers in America.

When you hear people talking about not being bound by political correctness, it's not some frustration about overly constrictive language rules put on them by Liberals. No... It's about not being able to just be straight up racist, xenophobic assholes. Telling it like it is means you can call Mexican immigrants rapists and you can go after a dead Muslim soldier's family because there's no way a Muslim could be a true patriot.

What we are seeing is that, yeah, actually, all this talk of America becoming a stupider, more isolationist, fearful country is true. Ronald Reagan would be disgusted by the words out of Trumps mouth. That's how far this country has come.

[degenerasian]

You don't even have to go as far as Reagan. The current Bush family is disgusted.

Trump is going to get whopped in the general election there is no doubt. But how did he win the Republican primary? That's what gets me.

[brian]

Trump is going to get whopped in the general election there is no doubt. But how did he win the Republican primary? That's what gets me.

That's a novel in and of itself, but there's a lot of reasons:

1) A ridiculously huge GOP field to start allowed Trump to start in or near the "lead" based solely on name recognition. This is like a preseason poll in football where a team #1 at the beginning of the season usually has an advantage over every other team throughout the season in the polls for no good reason at all beyond expectations.

2) There's actually a really small number of people who even participate in the nomination/primary voting process, It's even more convoluted when you factor how essentially undemocratic caucuses specifically are.

3) The GOP nomination rules (most states are winner-take-all, no super delegate process) allowed for someone like to Trump to score large numbers of delegates in states where he barely won.

That's the start. He won the nomination "fair and square" for lack of a better term, but he was only supported by a relatively small percentage of even GOP voters in the primaries.

[sancarlos]

You don't even have to go as far as Reagan. The current Bush family is disgusted.

Trump is going to get whopped in the general election there is no doubt. But how did he win the Republican primary? That's what gets me.

The wing nuts are the true believers, and that's who they cater to in the primaries. Funny, the right-wingers call the moderates RINOs, but, as we know, Trump isn't even a typical right-wing wing nut - he's a celebrity wing nut unlike the others, and won on the power of his personality (ugh). I'm surprised that relative moderates like Romney or McCain even got nominated. But, party loyalism didn't matter this go-round, with Trump and Cruz rallying the forces against them.

[govmentchedda]

From what I've read, her columns are 10% about what they are nominally about and 90% about what a clever writer she is.

Is she related to Dave Eggers?

Fuck you. Dave Eggers is awesome.

Not to threadjack, but I would be interested in your thoughts as to why he is awesome. Because I really don't see it.

Maureen Dowd is clearly self-important. Dave Eggers is clearly a good person, and imho, a great writer. He's a good person because of a long list of charitable and altruistic endeavors. He's comfortable writing fiction or non-fiction. Pruitt noted some of his good/great books, but did not include the one that I think is his best, the facetiously titled A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, which also details the fact that this guy did it the hard way, without a lot of help. Unlike Maureen Dowd, his writing isn't cloying or conceited. He's just a really fine writer. And, clearly, I'm not in the minority in this opinion, given all the honors he's received. He's highly valued out here in SF, where he lives.

Hmmm. Cause I think his writing is terribly conceited and navel-gazing. He has talent, for sure. So did Faulker, who got a lot of honors. I hate Fualkner with the passion of a thousand white hot suns. Maybe just not my cup of tea. I thought A heartbreaking Work.. fizzled badly, to the point that I was angry at him by the end. And Zetioun...oooh boy.

Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming!

Allow me to double down on the threadjack. Faulkner should be violated with a willow branch dipped in magnolia flavored bourbon.

[howard]

[P.D.X.]

Trump is playing right into HC's hand with this whole Khan thing. Could've ignored it and let it go, but of course he can't and here it is, still in the news cycle. He may or may not win the GE, but he's getting played like a fiddle at the moment.

[Pruitt]

Trump is playing right into HC's hand with this whole Khan thing. Could've ignored it and let it go, but of course he can't and here it is, still in the news cycle. He may or may not win the GE, but he's getting played like a fiddle at the moment.

He's making their job a bit easier.

The thinness of his skin is remarkable - at least Nixon had the sense to keep his hidden.

[DSafetyGuy]

Trump is going to get whopped in the general election there is no doubt. But how did he win the Republican primary? That's what gets me.

That's a novel in and of itself, but there's a lot of reasons:

1) A ridiculously huge GOP field to start allowed Trump to start in or near the "lead" based solely on name recognition. This is like a preseason poll in football where a team #1 at the beginning of the season usually has an advantage over every other team throughout the season in the polls for no good reason at all beyond expectations.

2) There's actually a really small number of people who even participate in the nomination/primary voting process, It's even more convoluted when you factor how essentially undemocratic caucuses specifically are.

3) The GOP nomination rules (most states are winner-take-all, no super delegate process) allowed for someone like to Trump to score large numbers of delegates in states where he barely won.

That's the start. He won the nomination "fair and square" for lack of a better term, but he was only supported by a relatively small percentage of even GOP voters in the primaries.

A corollary for #1 is that Trump's celebrity and outspoken nature also made him popular for news networks to stick on the air, as it was a sheer ratings grab for them. His appearances reinforced his "preseason #1" status because he was able to profess his opinions at length and much more frequently than other candidates.

[A_B]

The large field helped Trump YUGELY.

[degenerasian]

Using the preseason #1 analogy is Trump still #1 in the midseason polls or is his resume or strength of schedule slipping?

[DaveInSeattle]

Just when you think Trump can't possibly say anything more offensive, out comes this one:

When Powers asked how Trump would feel if his daughter, Ivanka Trump, had been subjected to the same behavior Ailes was accused of, Trump said he'd put the onus on her to leave the company or even the field in which she was working.

"I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case," he said.

My god...yeah, that's what a woman who is getting sexually harassed should do...just quit her job. Because its just that easy.

[degenerasian]

Also, I'm always amazed at how different politics are in Canada and the USA. One of the most amazing differences is how the stars and influential people get involved with the political cycle in the USA, especially with the Democratic party. I think it is extremely rare for a celebrity or for the CEO of a major company to join forces with a Canadian politician during an election. The closest thing I can remember is Wayne Gretzky appearing with Harper and even then he said he always helps the sitting prime minister whoever is happens to be.

[P.D.X.]

Using the preseason #1 analogy is Trump still #1 in the midseason polls or is his resume or strength of schedule slipping?

Kill the analogy. He won the nomination.

[Joe K]

The large field helped Trump YUGELY.

I know we've had this debate before but I actually disagree with this. No other GOP candidate did well enough to convince me they could've beaten Trump even 1-on-1. Neither Cruz not Kasich was able to touch him when the field narrowed and Bush and Rubio ran completely inept campaigns before that. People like to believe, for obvious reasons, that America is filled with reasonable minded moderates. But I just don't think that's true of the electorate that makes up GOP primary voters. Many of Trump's most inflammatory positions (mass deportations, border wall, ban on Muslim immigration) consistently polled very well among GOP primary voters -- even those who voted for other candidates. Trump is a reflection of what the GOP has become and not a fluke aberration.

[A_B]

The large field helped Trump YUGELY.

I know we've had this debate before but I actually disagree with this. No other GOP candidate did well enough to convince me they could've beaten Trump even 1-on-1. Neither Cruz not Kasich was able to touch him when the field narrowed and Bush and Rubio ran completely inept campaigns before that. People like to believe, for obvious reasons, that America is filled with reasonable minded moderates. But I just don't think that's true of the electorate that makes up GOP primary voters. Many of Trump's most inflammatory positions (mass deportations, border wall, ban on Muslim immigration) consistently polled very well among GOP primary voters -- even those who voted for other candidates. Trump is a reflection of what the GOP has become and not a fluke aberration.

I don't mean 1v1..I mean if it had been Rubio/Cruz/Trump as the only choices from the jump I think it would have been different.

[Joe K]

The large field helped Trump YUGELY.

I know we've had this debate before but I actually disagree with this. No other GOP candidate did well enough to convince me they could've beaten Trump even 1-on-1. Neither Cruz not Kasich was able to touch him when the field narrowed and Bush and Rubio ran completely inept campaigns before that. People like to believe, for obvious reasons, that America is filled with reasonable minded moderates. But I just don't think that's true of the electorate that makes up GOP primary voters. Many of Trump's most inflammatory positions (mass deportations, border wall, ban on Muslim immigration) consistently polled very well among GOP primary voters -- even those who voted for other candidates. Trump is a reflection of what the GOP has become and not a fluke aberration.

I don't mean 1v1..I mean if it had been Rubio/Cruz/Trump as the only choices from the jump I think it would have been different.

And given that Rubio -- despite having the full backing of the party establishment once Bush dropped -- only won Minnesota, DC and Puerto Rico, and lost badly to Trump even in his home state, I fail to see how that would've gone any differently than the Kasich/Cruz/Trump 3-way race that actually happened and was dominated by Trump.

[mister d]

The logic is that the huge field washed out the "normal" candidate who normally pulls ahead after the early wackiness. Huckabee and Santorum came out strong in 2008 and 2012 too before the party stabilized itself.

[The Sybian]

A corollary for #1 is that Trump's celebrity and outspoken nature also made him popular for news networks to stick on the air, as it was a sheer ratings grab for them. His appearances reinforced his "preseason #1" status because he was able to profess his opinions at length and much more frequently than other candidates.

Trump wasn't #1 right away. Ben "Sleepy" Carson was ahead, early, and nobody thought Trump stood a chance. Once he started saying crazy shit and inciting violence at his rallies, he started getting a ton of media coverage. I saw a calculation monetizing the amount of free media attention, and it was astronomical. No idea how they came up with the figure, but he got more air time than anyone else by a long shot. I think that was a huge factor pushing him to the front of the pack.

I also think the enormous field was a factor. The media split time between 16 other candidates. If the field only included Cruz, Jeb, and Little Marco, the anti-Trump votes would have been less watered down, and the other guys would have gotten a lot more media coverage. OTOH, Rubio looked like a light weight whenever he was on camera, and Jeb looked liked an inept dullard, so more coverage could have hurt. The Conservative media and GOP strongly preferred Jeb and Rubio, so it's not like the media skewed coverage to make them look bad, they did that to themselves. "Please clap..."

[Ryan]

Guys, the election is a fucking coin flip.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

We're fucked.

4 days later - 83.5 to 16.5. Slow down.

ETA: Sorry, that was the "if held today" number. 69-31

[sancarlos]

A FB "friend of a friend" posted this. And, I'm somewhat shocked that most people in the comments loved it. Yikes.
The Biblical Case for Voting for Donald Trump

[The Sybian]

Guys, the election is a fucking coin flip.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

We're fucked.

4 days later - 83.5 to 16.5. Slow down.

ETA: Sorry, that was the "if held today" number. 69-31

I think going after Khan caused a lot of damage. A lot of Trump supporters prioritize the military highly, and there is no way to take his attacks as patriotic or supporting the military. I've seen a number of people posting that this was their final straw, and seen a lot of Conservative pundits go after Trump for this. Last night I was trying to post a letter written by a high level GOP operative announcing she was leaving the Party, and would hold her nose and vote Hillary. She had 30 years working for the party, was supposedly a key person on the ground for both Bush's campaigns. Powerful stuff to say she is voting for Hillary after listing all of the major issues and saying she completely disagrees with Hillary on all of them, and saying we can't afford 4 more years of Obama's policies, but Trump would be worse. For the first time, I am feeling less afraid of Trump winning. But a lot can happen, especially with these hacked e-mails out there.

Watching clips of Trump's people trying to defend or explain his attacks on Khan are highly entertaining. One guy turned it around, blaming Obama for the son's death, for "tying the hands of our military." His expression when the interviewer pointed out the son died in 2004 was great. Another blamed Hillary for voting for the war, but sputtered when told Pence voted for the war, too. Another went with the approach that since Khan spoke, he is fair game for political attacks. That was rebuffed by agreeing, and saying the content of the attack is what is criticized, not the fact that they attacked. Another went on a tirade about how this entire issue is a media creation in an attempt to hurt Trump. Hey, they just put Trump on TV and let him speak. He hung himself, no need to spin or edit anything. Then he doubles down, and has his spokespeople support his asinine comments.

[Johnnie]

Guys, the election is a fucking coin flip.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

We're fucked.

4 days later - 83.5 to 16.5. Slow down.

ETA: Sorry, that was the "if held today" number. 69-31

Let me rephrase. Hillary Clinton is the sane option for the presidency.

We're fucked. :)

[Brontoburglar]

A FB "friend of a friend" posted this. And, I'm somewhat shocked that most people in the comments loved it. Yikes.
The Biblical Case for Voting for Donald Trump

I hope you find this study as useful as I did. Unfortunately, there will likely be legalists who take issue with the integrity of my exegetical conclusions here. If that’s you, I just want you to know that before I wrote this I prayed about it. And I feel really good about where I’m at right now.

that made me laugh

[sancarlos]

Doubling down on the attacks!