…Donald Trump’s declaration that our national misery and embarrassment won’t end on 8 November. He could lose in a landslide, and his ego will not allow him to accept it — expect the election night to be full of Trumpians declaring that everything is “rigged”. Expect him to go on a rhetorical rampage the day after. Expect his rabid followers to riot. Expect him to show up on inauguration day demanding to be sworn in, and to appear on every freakish far right wing radio show for years to come complaining about how the election was stolen.
I really just want him to go away.
The lies were pretty bad, too. Yes, he did say that he thought Japan should defend itself with nukes…to Chris Wallace, despite denying it last night. He babbled about ending abortion, claiming that a woman could demand one the day before her due date, and that a beautiful baby would be torn limb from limb…which sounds exactly like the kind of grisly lie pro-life kooks love to make up. There is no such thing as a ninth month abortion.
There was also the expected word salad served up every time actual policy was discussed. Here’s what he said to defend his claim that Aleppo has fallen to Assad forces.
Well, Aleppo is a disaster. It’s a humanitarian nightmare. But it has fallen from any standpoint. I mean, what do you need, a signed document? Take a look at Aleppo. It is so sad when you see what’s happened. And a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton. Because what has happened is by fighting Assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she thought, and now she is going to say, “Oh, he loves Assad.” He’s just much tougher and much smarter than her and Obama. And everyone thought he was gone two years ago, three years ago. He aligned with Russia. He now also aligned with Iran, who we made very powerful. We gave them $150 billion back. We give them $1.7 billion in cash. I mean cash, bundles of cash as big as this stage. We gave them $1.7 billion.
Now they have aligned, he has aligned with Russia and with Iran. They don’t want ISIS. But they have other things because we’re backing, we’re backing rebels. We don’t know who the rebels are. We’re giving them lots of money, lots of everything. We don’t know who the rebels are. And when and if, and it’s not going to happen because you have Russia and you have Iran now. But if they ever did overthrow Assad, you might end up as bad as Assad is, and he is a bad guy.
But you may very well end up with worse than Assad. If she did nothing, we’d be in much better shape. And this is what has caused the great migration where she has taken in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who probably in many cases, not probably, who are definitely in many cases ISIS-aligned. And we now have them in our country and wait until you see this is going to be the great Trojan Horse.
And wait until you see what happens in the coming years. Lots of luck, Hillary. Thanks a lot for doing a great job.
That…doesn’t…answer…the question. It doesn’t even make sense. The only thing it confirms is that Trump is an ignoramus.
Lots of luck, Republicans. Thanks a lot for doing a great job. I hope your party does a Joffrey and dies purple-faced and bleeding, but quickly and definitively, at least.
I’m detecting an effort to act like a real reporter from some of the Fox actors. It’s plainly meant to open the possibility of working for a real news network at some future time. This gives me hope… if the insiders can see the cracks in the foundation growing.
But definitely, the worst part was donny’s declaration that his ego needs American deaths to be satisfied. Shooting sprees and riots and whatnot.
“…complaining about how the election was stolen.”
The fun part is that the Trumpistas/Tea Party movement will also be angry with “establishment Republicans” whose lack of support will be described as the reason for the defeat, in a kind of quantum superposition with the librul voter fraud {using millions of illegal Mexicans to vote].
So Republicans can also expect to get fallout. But the lethal, gun-toting kooks will of course mostly be a threat to anyone considered liberal.
I also thought it was interesting that, after having used the word “stupid” to refer to both Clinton and Obama more than once, he interrupted her to point out what a mean lady she was when she made a joke about him paying his taxes. Apparently it isn’t mean to call someone “stupid”, but it is mean to joke that someone who is believed to have evaded taxes might not pay his taxes.
Here’s a Twitter thread responding to the Haiti discussion (an annoying presentation of a complex argument, to be sure, but useful).
I have a great fear that people are going to riot after the election. That they’re going to do violence for years after against the “other” that stole the election from the cishet white men. That Trump will throw the biggest tantrum yet, openly advocate sedition or incitement to violence or something else so illegal that the Power can’t look the other way and gets jailed and becomes a martyr to further inflame his terrorist base. And I really don’t know what to do except hope that nobody comes to the Target I work at for revenge…
There was also (I know a couple of these were mentioned in Marshall’s article, but they should be reiterated):
– the claim that Clinton shouldn’t have been allowed to run
– the interjection “Such a nasty woman”
– the striking inability to distance himself from Putin
– the constant interruptions and face-pulling
– the repeated references to the Obama “regime”
Oh – I completely forgot:
– “bad hombres”
I like the idea of Bad Hombres and Nasty Women opposing Trump.
iknklast @3,
See, the Trump campaign never insults anyone. I know that because Mike Pence told me.
Slate has an article about how the conservatives will explain away the Trump debacle. Every one who fails will automatically be condemned as “not a real conservative/not conservative enough”
— — —
Patriotism and nationalism; an important distinction http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/an-important-distinction
And I read this morning that several Republican pundits are saying that Trump won the debate decisively. Did they watch the same debate? Did they care about facts? The world wonders.
If nothing else, his comment on “rigged” elections and whether he would accept the election result should toss him into the trash bin of history.
If you *must* serve word salad, you should do it with the guttural voice of a former Austrian corporal. And you should not make sniffing noises all the time.
“Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins”:
Dolstoss!
All this concern about “accepting” election results has me paranoid. The media is up in arms, everyone – Republican and Democrat – is fired up about the foundations of Democracy and such. The assumption is that Hillary wins in a landslide and Trump keeps pouting, rousing the deplorables to riot. Certainly this is the most likely negative result from Trump’s nonsense.
But, what if the shit goes down in the opposite direction? All the deplorables intimidate people at the polls. People in Philadelphia and Cleveland and Columbus and Miami magically can’t vote in a timely manner because the machines breakdown…there is clear evidence of widespread election fuckery that benefits Trump. Will everyone be yelling at Hillary to just concede like they did with Gore?
I think Trump means something fundamentally different when he says, “rigged.” Like, Kenyans shouldn’t be president and Crooked Hillary should be in jail and the media is out to get him – it extends beyond voter fraud. But now that everyone is on the record expressing horror at the idea of not accepting election results, has Clinton painted herself into a corner if some ridiculous nonsense occurs?
Part of the problem in 2000 was the media rush to judgment creating the presumption that Bush won and Gore was being a big whiney asshole. A lot of people are predisposed to hating Hillary, and at my most paranoid, I can see the current zeitgeist against Trump backfiring.
“‘Nasty woman’ becomes the feminist rallying cry Hillary Clinton needed”:
Nasty Women vs. The Deplorables. My money is on the women.
Colbert was right, he did steal Sarah Palin’s Word Salad Spinner. He just babbles all over the place.
Trying to make sure I understand this: is it accurate to say that a pregnancy might be terminated in the ninth month, but the technique isn’t abortion?
#19: Correct. A pregnancy surgically terminated in the 9th month is called a C-section.
There are also very rare instances of D&E when the fetus is dead, or carries severe, fatal abnormalities, or when continuing the pregnancy has a high likelihood of killing the mother. Any law that tries to prevent those rare tragedies by forcing the mother to carry through and die is an unjust, anti-woman law.
Why did he dissemble about accepting the election results (CNET): Did Donald Trump just preview a new branded TV network. I can’t think of a better way to spin his failure into his future. If you can credit him with anything, it’s turning bankruptcy into a goldmine. I think we all have expected this sort of thing. The continuous spew about the legitimacy question will draw in tons of viewers.
Like doubthat @ #15, I’m concerned about all the chatter of accepting the results of election. First, I don’t understand why his acceptance even matters. Fuck him if he can’t take defeat. And what is this talk of “transition of power.” I should think that’s between the current president and the next president. I’m fairly confident that the existing administration and the new one will work together just fine, given the almost certain outcome of the election. Other than making noise, and drawing viewers to his new enterprise, he has no power to transition.
By the way, as soon as this election is over, I suggest we turn off anything about him. No links. No clicks. Let him disappear into the woodwork like that Alaskan Magpie. (I hear she finally made it down from Alaska to the Lower 48. Those dogsled trips are slow.)
Finally, word is that Christ Wallace was superior, the best moderator of the lot. Interesting that he works for the Murdoch cesspool. I also just learned that he is Mike Wallace’s son. Knowing that, I can see why he looked familiar to me. He seems to have some of the same integrity that Mike Wallace demonstrated, an essential ingredient for a believable journalist, even if it is just good acting.
Trump knows he lost the third debate. Rigged: Trump Claims ‘Secretly Used’ Debate Questions
Donald, did you ever hear of being prepared?
To SC (Salty Current):
Pasting entire articles from Vox into your comments isn’t fair use – it’s stealing. And leaving out one or two paragraphs doesn’t change that. Please respect the work of Vox writers by sharing a small quote and linking to the source.
And Freethoughblogs should be deleting comments that copy and paste all or most of someone else’s copyrighted work.
Oh, the shrieking man-baby has already explicitly given an example of what he means by a rigged election, at least once. He tweeted that an SNL skit was “rigging the election.” So anybody making fun of him is “rigging the election.” Pointing out what a clueless buffoon he is for making that statement is also rigging the election.
“Hey, Trump, I’ll sell you directions to the clue store for a thousand dollars!”
Oh, dear. I just rigged the election again!
Nerd @ #22 — I was under the impression that the topic areas were announced by Fox. According to a Fox News Politics story dated 10/12:
Perhaps he means specific questions, but that’s a pretty good clue of what he needed to be prepared for.
“nasty woman”, Drumph’s comment when HRS was describing how she would try to close all the loopholes in the tax code that Drumph used to worm his way out of paying any of his supposed billions into the federal funds.
Drumph keeps playing the “trickledown card” that has already been tried by Reagan and shown to be mistaken. Reduce taxes to grow the economy, sounds good, on the surface. Like the porsche that was more fuel efficient and produced zero emissions and looks like a beautiful porsche. On the surface. Beneath the surface, it is a shell over a recumbent bicycle.
He also likes to reword HRC’s proposed tax plan. Taxes will increase for those over $250k income. Carefully leaving off the clause that the increase is only for those with over $250K incomes, who have been seeing their tax bills plummet to insignificance.
He also, as usual, rephrased the polarity of the GDP growth. First saying it is negative, then complaining that at +1% it is too slow.
When asked about an analysis of his proposal’s effect on the economy of debt ending up bigger than the GDP (analysis from a conservative think tank), he didn’t even address the question. Just went off on a tangent, citing GDP growth in India and China as being much bigger than ours. Concluding with saying his reduction of taxes will make the GDP growth skyrocket again. (never explaining any details, just plain assertion)
———————–
aside from that. There was no worst thing in that debate. It was all worst. Watched only to churn my stomach and reinforce my ability to actually listen to HRC.
One last thing: When I read Clinton’s response to the abortion question, and in particular her response to the “late-term abortion” aspect, it occurred to me that one major outcome of her presidency might be finally putting an end to Republicans constantly flogging abortion. That would be a beautiful thing and would sap a lot of energy from the nut cases who have ridden that hobby horse to power. It’s obviously a failed political strategy, not to mention downright inhuman. I’m not hugely optimistic, but one can hope.
“Bad Hombres”
“You’re the Puppet”
“200 Generals”
“Friends on Wall Street”
“Fighting Assad”
“Nasty Woman”
Are we sure that Donald Trump isn’t just a band name generator that is gaining (but has not yet gained) sentience? I wouldn’t be surprised to see any of these on the venue for Warped Tour 2017.
@ #27
The problem is, the real Republican war on abortion comes at the state level, where a number of states have passed restrictions on abortion, and are constantly trying to pass more. There’s not a lot that can be done on the federal level to prevent that.
Looks familiar. It’s been done.
The Nazis had their Night of the Long Knives.
Stalin had his purges.
The GOP has had its long running but inconclusive civil war.
It might just keep creeping along.
Or one faction might actually win.
I’d bet on the crazies/Tea Party/Fascists outing the Establishment types. During the primaries, the only Establishment types were Kasich and John Ellis Bush. And they ended up near the bottom of the pack.
It has crossed my mind that Trump having a stroke or heart attack when the results come in clearly showing that he has lost would be poetic justice for the toxic campaign he has run. The downside would be that his more…vigorous…supporters would undoubtedly spend the next several years claiming that Mrs. Clinton had him murdered to cover up him having actually won the election.
Sigh…you can’t win that particular game. No matter how it all goes down, Clinton is going to have a rough presidency as the Republican run true to form and continue to be the “party of no”, and local voters in Congressional districts will keep re-electing the worst of them.
You’re right – I’ve been quoting too much from some articles. My intention is good: I want people who don’t generally follow links to see good and significant arguments, especially in this high-stakes context. But it’s true that some of the quoting is too extensive.
Reminder: Tonight is the Al Smith dinner.
Just bit of an aside on teh trum-prat’s , Bad hombre v bad ombré: Trump’s debate vow ignites storm of hair memes:
Technically it’s over, but Secretary Clinton and teh trum-prat will be “on stage”, so to speak, tonight at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York. Traditionally, this is a light-hearted roast, but since when has teh trum-prat paid any attention to conventions or traditions? So there is, unsurprisingly, some concern this year’s / election’s roast may not be the humorous goodwilled affair it usually is.
Now back to the aside…
Heh. Leaned something new, I didn’t know that’s what that hairsyling is called.
On the maybe not accepting results thing, actually doing that, especially explicit rejection, seems very very common before launching a coup d’état, or something else (not always clearly deliberate?) — and much more likely than a coup d’état in this situation — such as widespread civil unrest. Which can take many forms, and spiral off in very bad directions, made more concerning by all the guns.
Nerd of Redhead @22:
What? Preparing ahead of time? Like a peasant?
He’s said he’ll accept the result if he wins…
He probably will win. He and Putin have got a mass shooting/bombing lined up for 2 days before the election. It will be weeks before they are fingered, by which time the USA fascist state will be in place. Remember the Reichstag fire?
“I’m a unifier.” Like Putin, who routinely rigs elections and ensures that the Russian media pump out anti-western propaganda instead of unbiased news or basic truth.
“I have a presidential temperament.” No – you have the temperament of a dictator.
This person and his apologists need to phone home to democracy.
@36: Pro Tip: Sssh. You’ll get much better odds if you keep quiet about the conspiracy. Paddy Power has HRC at 11-2 on (bet 11 to win 2) and DJT at 9-2 (bet 2 to win 9). A few more so-called gaffes and he might go out to 10-1, sneak in with a million organized surrogated and win a small fortune! Timing is everything. Boy, 10-1 in a two-horse race would be unheard of, but Our Donald can do it.
Trump just talked in a rally about accepting the election result if he wins. He went on and on about reserving the right to challenge a questionable result. Of course, saying you’ll accept the results doesn’t mean you’ll waive your right to call for recounts in close votes, so this is nonsense.
Here’s a description of how a presidential candidate can and can’t challenge election results. Refusing to accept the results on grounds of alleged media bias, unevidenced claims of large-scale voter fraud, or personal attacks on your opponent wouldn’t get you anywhere. Fortunately, the process as a whole doesn’t seem to legally require a losing candidate’s acceptance of the results, but refusal to admit the legitimacy of the process or the president could have (and in this case is already having) serious political effects.
Combine his hemming and hawing on accepting the election results with his unsubtle hints at “second amendment people” engaging in domestic terrorism if Hillary wins. Add in how he’s encouraging violence against anti-Trump protesters by “jokingly” offering to pay bail for supporters who attack them, Throw in a dash of his and his supporters’ attitude that they can just keep investigating Hillary on the same issue until they find something, while arguing that a non-zero number of investigations against Trump’s scams is evidence of a conspiracy to bring him down.
I now find it hard to see Trump as anything but a pandering to bomb-throwing anarchists with dog whistles while manipulating weak-willed authoritarians with lip service to a police state. And, simultaneously the reverse. He’s so unsubtle about it I’m not sure it’s worth making a distinction.
well not accepting the election results or having a contested result or just casting enough doubt on the election to stimulate conflict over the results would be the perfect result for Putin. The last thing the Russian “leader” would want is a more or less united U.S. demonstrating a peaceful mature transition of power and focused on actually solving the ongoing problems both here domestically and contributing to the solutions world wide in a pragmatic practical way. far better to do everything to stimulate doubt and conflict in the population which is easily done and has the advantage of increasing your power by comparison. Which is the end most wished for
uncle frogy
re 40:
QFT
I too made the hasty association between his non-answer about accepting results and his pounding the 2nd Amendment drum. With all the anti-Hillary gun sales in Las Vegas in the debate timeframe. *brrr*
hmmmm, me sees incitement advocation.
*shaking head*
that confabulation, above, was just manifestation of paranoia peeking through. ugh.
SC@39 — this is exactly why happened with Pauline Hanson in Australia. Her political views were so rancid that she was disendorsed by the centre-right party she was running for, formed her own party and was lucky enough to get the balance of power in the Senate due to an unusually close election, but never won more than a small minority of the popular vote. On these terms, she is a failure.
But she changed the nature of politics in Australia with the centre-right party that kicked her out then looking closely at her grassroots support and deciding they didn’t want to lose it. So while they were busy criticising her (naturally, she was now an opposing party), they adopted a large number of her anti-immigrant stances. And then, because it was so electorally successful and flogged by the Murdoch nasties, even Australia’s left-wing party found it strategic to enter an arms race to come up with the most vile anti-immigration policies they could think of. Seriously, about 2 elections back, it was like “we’ll lock ’em up!”, matched by “we’ll lock ’em up in offshore facilities”, then “OK, then we’ll abuse them as well”, then “in that case our abuse will be worse than yours!” It was sickening.
So, yes, Trump will almost certainly lose this election, but even if he then disappears from politics forever he will have opened a door to let in more racism, sexism, militarism, and so on.
Sigh. I don’t have the energy to go into this right now, but anarchists have been on the front lines fighting fascism since fascism existed. Anarchist activists and intellectuals have been imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by fascists and authoritarian regimes. Trump is not pandering to anarchists. He’s pandering to violent people on the far Right. (I’m not claiming no anarchists have ever been terrorists, but anarchist isn’t a synonym for terrorist or violent person.)
Oh, I have no doubt. It’s even more concerning because, as I was saying yesterday, it seems to be part of a larger, transnational effort to build far-Right movements, parties, and media. My concern for the short term is less organized voter intimidation or organized post-election violence and more rightwing terrorism and assassination attempts. In the long term politically I have a number of concerns, but I don’t have much fear that the Democrats will move to the Right after this. On the contrary, I think it will galvanize and empower the more progressive parts of the party and unify the Left against a more clearly defined threat.
I think this is so unprecedented, though, that most people don’t know the law well enough to know whether concession is required for the presidency to change hands or what sorts of challenges are legally allowed. I didn’t.
SC@13,
I agree, HRC has played Trump like a Stradivarius, but I’m not entirely sure that was the best way to handle the situation. Most Presidential candidates don’t have to serve as their own attack dog. Usually, it falls to the VP or some other surrogate. That allows the Presidential candidate to appear friendly and above the fray, while still knocking the opponent off guard. In some ways, HRC has wound up playing up not just Drumpf’s weaknesses but her own as well.
I have found the one good thing about Trump: I haven’t heard from or about Sarah Palin in a long time.
@flange,
Personally I find that Trump has me longing for the relative reasonableness of Sarah Palin.
Well, not really, but it always amazes me how, just when you think the goppers can’t get any kookier, they do just that.
I think you can watch the Al Smith dinner on C-SPAN tonight at 8:50 Eastern. (I don’t know if you can outside the US.)
I don’t agree. I think she managed to wind him up during and after the debates, while somehow remaining calm and composed as he threw every miserable thing at her. I don’t expect a politician to be or appear “above the fray,” and for her as a woman trying to do that wouldn’t let her show her toughness and restraint. Her “built with Chinese steel!” interjection toward the end looked like she knew it was over – his attacks and stunts only made her more determined. In some ways, it reminded me of this.
I think the difference is that she only had to do one debate and just memorized and recited answers that were prepared for her by others. Trump is incapable of memorizing that much, and wouldn’t do it if he could. Whenever she’s speaking off the cuff or her prompter goes out, she’s totally incoherent.
I was surprised Syria entered in the debate at all.
But hey, wow. Most of the quote was about Syria and it is barely mentioned in the comment threads.
Americans really don’t give a fuck.
(No, I don’t think Syria is Clinton’s or Obama’s fault. At best they might bear *some* responsibility. I don’t bother to fact-check what Trump says.)
daily kos: “During Wednesday’s debate, Donald Trump talked a lot, but not so much about the questions he was asked. On the few occasions when he was forced to say something not part of his standard talking points, he blabbered in a way that struck a lot of people like a sixth grader forced to stand before the class and give a capsule review of a book that didn’t come out of the backpack all summer….
Trump:
Well the D.C. versus Heller decision was very strongly, and she was extremely angry about it, I watched, and she was very, very angry when upheld, and Justice Scalia was so involved, and it was a well-crafted decision, but Hillary was extremely upset, extremely angry, and people that believe in the Second Amendment, and believe in it very strongly, were very upset with what she had to say.”
This has sent the hashtag #TrumpBookReport trending: “Sleeping Beauty? The Prince just started kissing her. Didn’t even ask. When you’re a prince they let you do it.” etc…
I commented about it here this morning. Posted about it earlier this week. This thread is about the debate.
blf @ # 33: The internet was dye-ing to make jokes about ombré, the hairstyle …
Trivia buffs will note that 2016 also sets a record as the first US presidential campaign in which we can feel certain that neither of the major candidates ran under their own natural hair coloring.
Men with grey hair are considered “distinguished”, “mature”, maybe even “handsome”. Women with grey hair are considered “over the hill”, old, “grandmotherly”.
The double standard lives.
tomh @ #29
I’m aware that religious conservatives are fighting abortion rights at the state level, but there are things that can be done at the federal level. After all, Roe vs Wade is at the federal level. So, a Supreme Court that actively reviews these state laws would be a start. There are probably many other things that could be done at the federal level to support women’s autonomy like education and research, and perhaps investigating some of the more virulent opponents of women’s rights.
Getting a lot more women in Congress would help because women are probably the best representatives of these issues. Not to say men can’t, and certainly they should, but reproductive rights is an issue of obvious importance to women. However, women represent less than 20% of the House, and exactly 20% of the Senate. That’s deplorable in a supposedly democratic society. Demographics indicate that approximately half of each house should be women. I would bet that a congress of 218 women representatives and 51 women senators would find things to do to support women’s rights.
But perhaps the most important thing is for national leaders to call “bull shit” when these crackpots start whining about ripping babies out of the womb, which is pretty much what Clinton did last night. These people are vicious. They are either cynically exploiting a difficult and sometimes tragic personal situation for their political ends. Or they’re true believers of very stupid stuff and need to sit down, shut up, listen, and learn something.
Either way, we need a national conversation to put an end to this perverse juggernaut and I can’t think of a better person to lead that conversation than President Clinton. I believe she will, and I’ll support her when she does.
Pierce R. Butler @ #54 — This may also be the first series of presidential debates where one the candidates didn’t wear a black or dark blue suite, white shirt, and red tie. May the trend spread because the man-suite uniform is so done.