Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Mirror Image]

Looks like this might be the breaking point - approx. 20 Republican leaders, including John McCain, John Thune, and Kelly Ayotte, have un-endorsed Trump and some have even asked him to quit.

Of course, there's no way he will quit, right?

Of course, Trump won't quit! As much as we'd love him to throw in the hairpiece, it looks like we're just not that lucky.

[Herman]

Looks like this might be the breaking point - approx. 20 Republican leaders, including John McCain, John Thune, and Kelly Ayotte, have un-endorsed Trump and some have even asked him to quit.

Of course, there's no way he will quit, right?

There's a large dose of hypocrisy here. The latest revelations are entirely of a piece with other things we heard; it's just a little more crass.

What urges those GOP folks to dump Trump now is that they're thinking of their own electoral skin.

[zamyrabyrd]

What's ironic is how the Democrats who didn't think Bill Clinton's actual sexual assaults: Kathleen Willey, Paul Jones, and Juanita Broderick (all these women accuse him of assault or rape, not just an extra marital affair, of which he also had plenty) were disqualifying acts, are all now are shocked, shocked, at Trump's dirty mouth.  I do think Trump is disgusting; but really.  Methinks the WPost and NYC and all the the rats fleeing Trumps leaky ship protest too much. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Not to mention self-righteousness. A private conversation 11 years ago in the non-English speaking world, meaning where there is not a tradition of Puritanism, would not get such a rise. And really it shouldn't be ethical either to divulge. Geez, where are the thought police? Apparently everywhere. Billy-boy never apologized, yet what he did was worse. Those who muckrake may find s**tloads on their own heads, maybe even in the next 24 hours...

[Karl Henning]

There's a large dose of hypocrisy here. The latest revelations are entirely of a piece with other things we heard; it's just a little more crass.

What urges those GOP folks to dump Trump now is that they're thinking of their own electoral skin.

Aye;  all the rest of us have known for months that he is unfit for the office.

[Turner]

A very good article on the current state of Putin, Trump & the US elections, I think:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/seven-reasons-the-new-russian-hack-announcement-is-a-big-deal-214330

[San Antone]

Aye;  all the rest of us have known for months that he is unfit for the office.

I grant you his rhetoric is crude.  But does this actually render him unfit for office?  As I said before, all the Democrats circled the wagons around Bill Clinton, and Hillary defended him and intimidated the women accusing him.  Also, there was Vernon Jordan's book in which he jokingly bragged about him and Bill Clinton "talking pussy" on the golf course and that "there's nothing wrong with a little poontang talk".  Even Wikipedia mentions it.

The difference in this case is that Trump is caught on tape.  Republican elected officials are running for the high grass to save their own asses because they have no loyalty to Trump mainly because he is not a member of their club.  Also, the NYT, CNN, WPost and other major media outlets are making a point to carry Hillary Clinton's water on this and other issues damaging to Trump in order to sink his campaign also because he is not one of them.  Many Republicans are one of them, e.g. John McCain, and others who also benefit from the status quo.

This is an example of what is really wrong with our elective process. The voters do not benefit from an objective press to cover this election fairly, and we have a Congress filled with corrupt elected officials.   All of which leads to a double standard being used, in order to safeguard the status quo, against the one person who threatens the status quo.  This is an elective system and political machine which a majority of the voters are sick and tired of, which is why Trump got the nomination in the first place. 

And if you think Trump is unique in his private language about women you are sadly naive.  I would venture to guess that every CEO, the majority of celebrities and politicians have said similar things or done worse (Bill Cosby anyone?).

Trump is an extremely obnoxious and probably a critically flawed candidate.  But his attempt to storm the gates of power resonated with millions of voters, not all Republican btw, and hopefully there will be a more competent candidate in the future.

The USA is lost if there is no one to break the corporate grip on Washington and the media.

[Madiel]

The voters do not benefit from an objective press to cover this election fairly

...

Trump is an extremely obnoxious and probably a critically flawed candidate.

Well, how do you know that if not for the press?

Not for the first time, I feel like you're arguing against yourself. You have a very clear view that "the system" is a problem, and you indicate frequently that you are against the powers that be.

But the "powers that be" as you perceive them are telling you that Trump is awful. Do you agree with them, or not?

Personally I can't see any value in installing Trump in the White House just because he's not "one of them". For starters it's fairly ludicrous to label him as an outsider when he has power and influence dripping from him, it's just commercial/business influence instead of political influence. He might not be "one of them" in the political sense, but he's hardly "one of us" either. Not even close.

I'm sure it's possible to have a candidate who is a relative outsider who is also credible. On the other side of politics Bernie Sanders seemed to tap into many of the same sentiments. But on the Republican side, the guy who attracted the voters just ain't credible.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Also, the NYT, CNN, WPost and other major media outlets

I wonder if all of those offering these knee-jerk reactions to the NYT and WPost actually read these newspapers. I do, and I find a wide variety of editorial viewpoints therein including conservative columnists David Brooks and Ross Douthat of the Times. Yes, the NYT has its share of liberals including Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, but MoDo in particular has always been scathing about the Clintons and hasn't changed her tune. And as orfeo quite rightly remarks, how do you know all these things if not for the press?

[drogulus]

     Juanita Broaddrick Wants To Be Believed

     Who chose the title for this article? Are we to assume that wanting to be believed is unusual?

     I find her story to be credible.

[Gurn Blanston]

I grant you his rhetoric is crude.  But does this actually render him unfit for office?  As I said before, all the Democrats circled the wagons around Bill Clinton, and Hillary defended him and intimidated the women accusing him.  Also, there was Vernon Jordan's book in which he jokingly bragged about him and Bill Clinton "talking pussy" on the golf course and that "there's nothing wrong with a little poontang talk".  Even Wikipedia mentions it.

The difference in this case is that Trump is caught on tape.  Republican elected officials are running for the high grass to save their own asses because they have no loyalty to Trump mainly because he is not a member of their club.  Also, the NYT, CNN, WPost and other major media outlets are making a point to carry Hillary Clinton's water on this and other issues damaging to Trump in order to sink his campaign also because he is not one of them.  Many Republicans are one of them, e.g. John McCain, and others who also benefit from the status quo.

This is an example of what is really wrong with our elective process. The voters do not benefit from an objective press to cover this election fairly, and we have a Congress filled with corrupt elected officials.   All of which leads to a double standard being used, in order to safeguard the status quo, against the one person who threatens the status quo.  This is an elective system and political machine which a majority of the voters are sick and tired of, which is why Trump got the nomination in the first place. 

And if you think Trump is unique in his private language about women you are sadly naive.  I would venture to guess that every CEO, the majority of celebrities and politicians have said similar things or done worse (Bill Cosby anyone?).

Trump is an extremely obnoxious and probably a critically flawed candidate.  But his attempt to storm the gates of power resonated with millions of voters, not all Republican btw, and hopefully there will be a more competent candidate in the future.

The USA is lost if there is no one to break the corporate grip on Washington and the media.

I agree with much of what you say here. A couple of things occurred to me while reading: if he (DFT) isn't a member of this or that group, thus an outsider, what group is he a member of which seems to resonate with all these voters? Surely, surely, they don't think he is one of them?!?  'cause that just ain't happenin'. Also, even the idea of being disaffected kindred spirits  is just a a ploy to manipulate them. DFT isn't disaffected, he has been making a bundle off whatever is available, and there is plenty available with his money and connections.

I am all for some major reform in Washington. Let's start with getting the 30 and 40 years senators and congressman off to the retirement home where they belong. Let's look at real campaign finance reform. Let's look at term limits in a serious way. Putting a manipulative lunatic into the White House isn't going to accomplish any of those things. Note that I didn't identify a particular person there. 

But DFT's plainly stated (in the last debate) goal of eliminating governmental regulation as a way of saving money, and lowering taxes on big business to promote trickle-down, a discredited theory at best, and dumping any sort of health care reform, what sort of a positive is coming out of this? Some nebulous promises about "I'll create jobs, there will be millions of jobs..." doesn't amount to a puddle of skunk piss unless there is a viable,solid plan to do it. And I haven't heard one yet.

In any case, I am an 'anyone but Trump'er', with the exception of any radical Xtian extremists who want Xtian 'Sharia' Law here, which leaves out Cruz and Pence, for example. I just don't believe that anyone can be a successful candidate and eventual President by simply being against things. At some point, you have to be for something. And I don't mean 'when the time comes...' either!

[Rinaldo]

Of course, Trump won't quit! As much as we'd love him to throw in the hairpiece, it looks like we're just not that lucky.

Quite the contrary: I'd love to see that git trounced at the election.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I'm sure it's possible to have a candidate who is a relative outsider who is also credible. On the other side of politics Bernie Sanders seemed to tap into many of the same sentiments. But on the Republican side, the guy who attracted the voters just ain't credible.

Those of you who can stand to read book-length posts might find this one interesting. Eric Zuesse, historian and Bernie Sanders supporter, writes about why Bernie fans should prefer Trump to Clinton:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/im-bernie-sanders-voter-heres-why-ill-vote-trump

[Herman]

And if you think Trump is unique in his private language about women you are sadly naive.

It's not just "private language" aka locker room talk. He walked the walk.

There are dozens of stories of women with stories about the way Trump groped them, pressed them to have sex with him.

I expect we'll hear some of those tonight.

Just this week, this story of a Florida woman who had a business together with her husband, and Trump wanted a piece of the business, but alos of the woman, and said to her husband, in advance of talking about business, he needed to get away because Trump was yugely attracted to his wife.

There is the whole scale of douchebaggery, from "inspecting" unclad Miss USA candidates, even down to Trump taking a woman out for dinner and when the check comes it turns out he can't pay, so she gets the check.

[André]

I wonder if all of those offering these knee-jerk reactions to the NYT and WPost actually read these newspapers. I do, and I find a wide variety of editorial viewpoints therein including conservative columnists David Brooks and Ross Douthat of the Times. Yes, the NYT has its share of liberals including Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, but MoDo in particular has always been scathing about the Clintons and hasn't changed her tune. And as orfeo quite rightly remarks, how do you know all these things if not for the press?

Absolutely.

The Press (and that includes TV and internet) is just a channel through which people get their information. Unless one adheres to some kind of conspiracy theory here, it's a question of supply and demand. Just as there are conservative minded people, there is a conservative press to feed them what they need to hear and read, and the same goes for liberal minded people who will choose to get their info from the sources they relate to.

Most major outlets are not in the business of influencing people. If they do show a bias their constituency is well aware of it and that's why they choose that source in the first place (I'm thinking CNN and Fox News for example). An objective press is not one that takes no sides. Anybody is free to agree or disagree. You can't take the Press to court for not agreeing with your views. You just select another source. That's freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

And of course, any individual has the absolute right to change minds and political sides over the course of his or her life. That will likely influence the choice of news sources.

......................................................................

Here's an interesting footnote to the campaign from the Texas Tribune (which *I think* is an objective outlet): could the 1824 election repeat itself ? Tantalizing thought...
https://www.tribtalk.org/2016/10/06/what-the-1824-election-can-teach-us-about-2016/

[San Antone]

I agree with much of what you say here. A couple of things occurred to me while reading: if he (DFT) isn't a member of this or that group, thus an outsider, what group is he a member of which seems to resonate with all these voters? Surely, surely, they don't think he is one of them?!?  'cause that just ain't happenin'. Also, even the idea of being disaffected kindred spirits  is just a a ploy to manipulate them. DFT isn't disaffected, he has been making a bundle off whatever is available, and there is plenty available with his money and connections.

Trump has not been an elected official which both makes him inexperienced as a politician and someone who has a better chance than yet another politician to change the system.  He is the wrong messenger but has the right message.

I am all for some major reform in Washington. Let's start with getting the 30 and 40 years senators and congressman off to the retirement home where they belong. Let's look at real campaign finance reform. Let's look at term limits in a serious way. Putting a manipulative lunatic into the White House isn't going to accomplish any of those things. Note that I didn't identify a particular person there. 

I agree that politicians who remain in office for 30-40 years are a problem.  A big part of that is because our elective process favors incumbents.  While Trump is extremely flawed, I do think he might have created an opportunity for more non-traditional  candidates to challenge the old guard.

But DFT's plainly stated (in the last debate) goal of eliminating governmental regulation as a way of saving money, and lowering taxes on big business to promote trickle-down, a discredited theory at best, and dumping any sort of health care reform, what sort of a positive is coming out of this? Some nebulous promises about "I'll create jobs, there will be millions of jobs..." doesn't amount to a puddle of skunk piss unless there is a viable,solid plan to do it. And I haven't heard one yet.

I agree his presentation of his policies has been poorly delivered. However, I do agree that government regulations do often tie the hands of entrepreneurs and business and tamp down innovation and economic expansion which is how real new jobs are created.  Clinton is promising more government funded job creation, much like Obama's stimulus programs.  Government stimulated job creation is not real job creation and is short term and does not address the underlying problems the US economy is facing. 

Again, Trump is very far from the ideal candidate, but he is the only one whose candidacy challenges the status quo.

In any case, I am an 'anyone but Trump'er', with the exception of any radical Xtian extremists who want Xtian 'Sharia' Law here, which leaves out Cruz and Pence, for example. I just don't believe that anyone can be a successful candidate and eventual President by simply being against things. At some point, you have to be for something. And I don't mean 'when the time comes...' either!

I have said before this election is a binary choice: Trump or Clinton.   One of those two will be the next president.  I will not stay at home even though Tennessee is safely a Red state, and will vote for Trump and Republican down the ticket.   Clinton is, in my opinion worse, than Trump because her Liberal policies represent the wrong direction I think for the US. 

Trump is for something: lower taxes; pragmatic trade negotiations; border control and enforcement, economic expansion and job creation - while at the same time not being a social conservative (although he pandered to the evangelicals during the primaries).  Unfortunately, for him and everyone who voted for him, he has shot off his legs with a shotgun and I just about ruined any chance that 1) his actual policy message can get out and 2) winning the election because he has conducted his campaign in a manner beneath the dignity of the office he seeks.

[Rinaldo]

Eric Zuesse, historian and Bernie Sanders supporter, writes about why Bernie fans should prefer Trump to Clinton.

Weird, these Sanders supporters going against the opinion / advice of the guy they supported. But even weirder is the belief that Trump would do well on the issues Zuesse lists.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Weird, these Sanders supporters going against the opinion / advice of the guy they supported.

Yeah, well Bernie disappointed a lot of his supporters with that endorsement.

[Madiel]

Trump in favour of job creation?

Well sure, so long as you think it still counts as a job when you don't get paid.

[Parsifal]

What's ironic is how the Democrats who didn't think Bill Clinton's actual sexual assaults: Kathleen Willey, Paul Jones, and Juanita Broderick (all these women accuse him of assault or rape, not just an extra marital affair, of which he also had plenty) were disqualifying acts, are all now are shocked, shocked, at Trump's dirty mouth. 

I do think Trump is disgusting; but really.  Methinks the WPost and NYC and all the the rats fleeing Trumps leaky ship protest too much.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

I don't give Bill Clinton a pass, particularly in the Monica Lewinski incident. It revealed him as having a gravely defective character, and he demeaned the office of the president. The fact that a flawed person once became president means the precedent has been set and we should not hesitate to elect an amoral, misogynistic narcicist and pathological liar to be president?

At least you could say of Bill Clinton that, despite his moral failings, he led the country through a period of economic growth, prosperity and peace.

[drogulus]

     Donald Trump used to make light of Bill Clinton's sex scandals. Now they're his main weapon.

In another interview, with CNBC in 1998 and first unearthed by the Washington Post, Trump called Clinton accuser Paula Jones "a loser." In August 1998, Trump again dismissed Jones, and said Bill Clinton was actually the victim.

"I don't necessarily agree with his victims," Trump said to Fox News' Neil Cavuto in a clip uncovered earlier in the year by the "Daily Beast." "His victims are terrible. He is, he is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position."

"These people are just, I don't know, where he met them - where he found them," Trump continued. "But the whole group — it's truly an unattractive cast of characters. Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, I mean, this woman, I watch her on television. She is so bad. The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group. I'm not just talking about physical."