Trump Stuff - Positive or Negative - Have at It

[DarthMonk]

Here is a place to say anything you like about Trump.

[DarthMonk]

Subject: David Petraeus: Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamist terrorists

By David Petraeus May 13
David Petraeus is a retired U.S. Army general who commanded coalition forces in Iraq from 2007 to 2008 and Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011 and served as CIA director from 2011 to 2012.

Almost 15 years after the 9/11 attacks, and five years since the killing of the chief architect of those attacks, the United States and the world face a resurgent threat from terrorism. This stark reality should inform the national debate as we prepare to elect our next commander in chief.

As states across the Middle East have collapsed into civil war, Islamist extremist groups such as the Islamic State have exploited the upheaval to seize vast swaths of territory, which they have used to rally recruits, impose totalitarian rule over the people trapped in these areas and plot attacks against the rest of the world.

Few responsibilities that our next president inherits will be more urgent, important or complex than thwarting these terrorist plans, reversing the conditions that have enabled their rise and combating the broader Islamist extremist ideology that animates them.

It would be a mistake to minimize the continuing risk posed by these groups. Although al-Qaeda’s senior leadership ranks have been dramatically reduced, and while encouraging progress is being made against the Islamic State in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, Syria, these remain resilient and adaptive organizations. While Islamist extremist networks do not pose an “existential” threat to the United States in the way that Soviet nuclear weapons once did, their bloodlust and their ambition to inflict genocidal violence make them uniquely malevolent actors on the world stage.

Nor can they be “contained.” On the contrary, from Afghanistan before 9/11 to Syria and Libya today, history shows that, once these groups are allowed to establish a haven, they will inevitably use it to project instability and violence.

Moreover, the fact is that free and open societies such as ours depend on a sense of basic security to function. If terrorism succeeds in puncturing that, it can threaten the very fabric of our democracy — which is, indeed, a central element of the terrorist strategy.

For that reason, I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.


Some justify these measures as necessary to keep us safe — dismissing any criticism as “political correctness.” Others play down such divisive rhetoric as the excesses of political campaigns here and in Europe, which will fade away after the elections are over.

I fear that neither is true; in fact, the ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.

As policy, these concepts are totally counterproductive: Rather than making our country safer, they will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens. As ideas, they are toxic and, indeed, non-biodegradable — a kind of poison that, once released into our body politic, is not easily expunged.

Setting aside moral considerations, those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.

At the same time, such statements directly undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.

During the surge in Iraq, we were able to roll back the tide of al-Qaeda and associated insurgents because we succeeded in mobilizing Iraqis — especially Sunni Arabs — to join us in fighting against the largely Sunni extremist networks in their midst. Later, we took on the Iranian-backed Shiite militia, with the important support of the Shiite-majority Iraqi security forces.

Likewise, the rapid ouster of the Taliban regime after 9/11 was made possible by our partnership with Muslim fighters of the Afghan Northern Alliance. And in Southeast Asia, it was by working with the government of Indonesia — the most populous Muslim-majority country in the world — that Jemaah Islamiah, once one of al-Qaeda’s most capable affiliates, was routed.

The good news is that today, hundreds of thousands of Muslims are fighting to defeat the terrorists who wish to kill us all. This includes brave Afghan soldiers fighting the Islamic State and the Taliban, as well as Persian Gulf forces in Yemen battling both Iranian-backed Houthis and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And it includes Arab and Kurdish forces who are battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In fact, we should do more to support these partners of ours.

Inescapably, clearing territory of entrenched terrorist networks and then holding it takes boots on the ground. The question is — whether in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria or Mali — do the bulk of those boots need to be our own or those of local Muslim partners?

I fear that those who demonize and denigrate Islam make it more likely that it will be our own men and women who ultimately have to shoulder more of this fight — at greater cost in dollars and lives.

We should also acknowledge that patriotic Muslim Americans in our intelligence agencies and armed forces — many of them immigrants or children of immigrants — have been vital assets in this fight with radical Islam.

It has also been through building ties of trust and cooperation between law enforcement and Muslim communities in the United States that we form our most effective defense against homegrown radicalization and lone-wolf attacks.

Again, none of this is to deny or diminish the reality that we are at war with Islamist extremism — a fanatical ideology based on a twisted interpretation of Islam. Nor is it to minimize the need for smart, intelligence-driven measures to prevent terrorists from infiltrating our borders and exploiting our immigration policies.

But it is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric. Demonizing a religious faith and its adherents not only runs contrary to our most cherished and fundamental values as a country; it is also corrosive to our vital national security interests and, ultimately, to the United States’ success in this war.

[DarthMonk]

Subject: Trump’s anti-Muslim tirades have costly consequences

Excerpt:

"President George W. Bush placed a Koran in the White House Library for the first time in U.S. history and created an envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. He visited U.S. mosques — right after Sept. 11 and later to rededicate the mosque where Dwight D. Eisenhower had laid the cornerstone . President Obama followed up his 2009 Cairo speech with an array of initiatives to bolster trust and engagement with Muslims. At a local level, our embassies have devoted countless hours to convincing Muslim populations that the United States believes in equality, religious freedom and respect."

Full Article:

By Farah Pandith September 2
Farah Pandith was a political appointee in the George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. She is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

While serving under Secretary Hillary Clinton as the State Department’s first special representative to Muslim communities, I had a chance to visit with Muslims in almost 100 countries. This summer, as Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric dominates the headlines, I think back to one encounter, both powerful and troubling, that I had with a community in Cambodia.

We had driven for hours through the jungle on a hard-packed dirt road. Finally we reached a village — just a few modest buildings among the trees, including a simple mosque with whitewashed mud walls and a dirt-pressed floor. Sandals lined the walls, and straw mats served as our seats. Dozens of barefoot residents of this Muslim community crowded around.

I sat down on the floor beside a translator, and our conversation began. Audience members asked questions that, unfortunately, I had often heard in other communities. Are Muslims real U.S. citizens? Do Americans spit on you when they hear you’re Muslim? Can Muslims wear headscarves in the United States? Can they pray, and if so, where? Wasn’t 9/11 a setup by Jews to frame Muslims? How was I allowed to serve in government if I was a Muslim?

And then came a question I hadn’t expected: Does Terry Jones really represent America?

Jones had been an obscure Florida preacher with a flock of fewer than 50. He first gained notoriety in 2010 when he announced his plan to burn Korans on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A year later, he did burn the Muslim holy book, provoking international outrage and unrest that left dozens dead. Most Americans had forgotten all about him, if they had heard of him at all. But here in this remote pocket of Cambodia, the inhabitants had not only heard of him and remembered him by name. They also thought he spoke for America.

Today, instead of an obscure preacher openly disparaging Muslims and Islam, it’s the leader of one of the two main U.S. political parties, a man supported by about 40 percent of the population. He doesn’t burn the Koran. Rather, he accuses a sitting president of having “founded” the so-called Islamic State terrorist organization. He denigrates the Muslim mother of a fallen U.S. soldier. He proclaims Islam a dire threat to the homeland. He proposes a ban on Muslims entering the United States. And, unlike Jones’s words, his are endlessly discussed in the mainstream media worldwide, week after painful week.

The United States won’t soon repair the damage done by Trump to its image among Muslims. We’ve spent billions since 9/11 trying to convey a clear picture of who we are as Americans and to convince Muslims that the United States is not “at war” with them.

President George W. Bush placed a Koran in the White House Library for the first time in U.S. history and created an envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. He visited U.S. mosques — right after Sept. 11 and later to rededicate the mosque where Dwight D. Eisenhower had laid the cornerstone . President Obama followed up his 2009 Cairo speech with an array of initiatives to bolster trust and engagement with Muslims. At a local level, our embassies have devoted countless hours to convincing Muslim populations that the United States believes in equality, religious freedom and respect.

Now, thanks to Trump, any goodwill we have generated has been largely diminished. In rural villages such as the one I visited in Cambodia and in large cities around the globe, Muslims will point to Trump as irrefutable evidence that the United States hates them and is at war with Islam.

This impression has real-world consequences that will translate directly into more terrorist attacks globally and more lives lost here at home. After spending more than a decade speaking to tens of thousands of Muslims, I have little doubt that the Islamic State and other groups will recruit more Muslim youths, thanks to Trump’s anti-Muslim tirades and the consequent widespread belief that the United States is perpetrating a war against Islam. Indeed, the terrorists explicitly appeal to supporters and potential recruits by touting the war they are fighting against an America resolutely hostile to Muslims.

Trump may lose in November. But his bigoted words about Islam and his mythical narratives about the formation of the Islamic State will require hundreds of millions of dollars and many decades to neutralize.

[SkinsJock]

There is nothing anyone can do to increase OR decrease the hatred (or the motivation) that terrorists have for the USA - NOTHING

[Deadskins]

There is nothing anyone can do to increase OR decrease the hatred (or the motivation) that terrorists have for the USA - NOTHING

That's complete BS. This may be the single most ignorant thing you have ever posted on THN.

[DarthMonk]

Trump's senior campaign adviser:
“Oh please, this ‘words matter’ stuff, I mean, this is ridiculous,”


As a preamble to what follows:
"The classic conservative belief, by contrast, is that character is destiny. Temperament is foundational. Each candidate has to cross some basic threshold of dependability as a human being before it’s even relevant to judge his or her policy agenda. Trump doesn’t cross that threshold."



IMMIGRATION
1. Build a wall, deport all undocumented immigrants.

2. Deport all undocumented immigrants but bring the 'good' ones back legally.

3. Build the wall, deport criminals, triple the number of ICE officers, end birthright citizenship.

4. Use a deportation force to implement policy.

5. Trump might be flexible on actually deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants.

6. Deport undocumented immigrants, but don't call it "mass deportations."

7. A deportation force is "TBD."

8. "I'm gonna do the same" as past presidents.

9. I'm open to "softening."

10. "There's no amnesty" but "we work with them."

11. Deport "criminal illegal immigrants" within one hour of being sworn in.

12. A deportation force is not currently being discussed.

13. The plan — whatever the plan is — has never changed.


PROPOSED MUSLIM BAN
1. No Muslims should be allowed to enter the United States —as immigrants or visitors.

2. Ban Muslims from entering but make an exception for friends and Muslims serving in the US military.

3. The Muslim ban was just an suggestion.

4. Ban Muslims as a matter of policy, as well as people from countries with a history of terrorism.

5. Ban people from countries with a history of terrorism.

6. Ban Muslims from countries with a history of terrorism, and potentially also other Muslims.

7. The Muslim ban was never about Muslims.

8. Nothing has changed, nothing to see here.

9. The ban is negotiable.

10. The ban would call for "extreme vetting."

11. The ban hasn't changed, I just don't like saying the word "Muslim."

12. There's a ban, plus "extreme vetting" that includes an ideological test.


TAXES
1. The wealthy should pay more.

2. Cut taxes for the wealthy big time.

3. People like me should pay more.

4. I never said that! Cut everyone's taxes!

5. Maybe don't slash taxes by $10 trillion — slash taxes by $3 trillion, instead.

6. Scrap the earlier plan entirely. Here are new tax brackets.


DEFEATING ISIS
1. Maybe send troops in. Definitely go after the oil fields.

2. Bomb the oil fields. Send some troops in.

3. Send troops to defeat ISIS. Don't forget about the oil fields.

4. Destroy the oil. Let our regional allies send ground troops. If they don't, stop buying their oil.

5. Declare war, send in some troops.


VOTING FOR THE IRAQ WAR
1. Clinton voted for the war, so she has bad judgment.

(by the way, the war actually never came up for a vote)

"It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started," he falsely stated in his June 22 speech. (There is no evidence he opposed the invasion, but there is ample evidence that he supported it.)

2. It doesn't matter, people make mistakes.

Pressed on his running mate Pence's vote for the Iraq war in an interview on 60 Minutes, Trump said in July he didn't "care" because "it's a long time ago, and he voted that way and they were also misled."

"He's entitled to make a mistake every once in a while," Trump declared, telling CBS' Lesley Stahl of Clinton that "no, she's not" allowed to make a mistake herself.



GUNS
1. Get rid of gun-free zones.

2. No guns in classrooms, except maybe some guns in classrooms.

3. I'm not advocating for guns in classrooms, but wait, yes I am.

4. Let's put trained gunmen in schools.

5. We should only get rid of some gun-free zones.

6. More guns would save lives.

7. I didn't actually mean arming clubgoers.



2011 INTERVENTION IN LIBYA
1. The intervention in Libya by the U.S.-led coalition was a terrible idea.

2. I've never offered a different opinion on Libya.

3. I guess I did support an intervention.

4. I wanted a surgical intervention, not a "strong" intervention.



JAPAN AND NUKES
1. Japan should have nuclear weapons.

2. I never said that!



CLIMATE CHANGE
1. I don't believe in it.

2. Global warming is threatening one of my golf courses.



NATIONAL DEBT
1. Get rid of the national debt in 8 years.

2. Only pay down a little. Invest in infrastructure first.

3. Pay off the debt by getting America's creditors to accept less.

4. Don't worry about it — the U.S. can't default because we "print the money."

5. I won't try to renegotiate the national debt.

6. Take out new loans and pay back debt with new debt.



ABORTION
1. Criminalize women who have abortions.

2. Let the states decide what to do about criminalizing abortion.

3. Never mind. Don't punish the women.



VIOLATING U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS WITH REGARD TO TORTURE, TERRORISM
1. The military will obey potentially illegal orders.

2. The military shouldn't break the law, after all.

3. The laws forbidding torture should be changed so no one has to break them.



VISAS FOR HIGH-SKILLED WORKERS
1. H-1B visas are bad for American workers.

2. H-1B visas are good.

3. H-1B visas are still bad, according to Trump's unchanged website.

4. H-1B visas are necessary: 'I'm changing.'

5. H-1B visas are definitely bad.



BORDER CONTROL AND THE REFUGEE CRISIS
1. The U.S. has a 'humanitarian' obligation to take in some Syrian refugees.

2. The U.S. cannot and should not accept Syrian refugees.

3. Close the border.

4. Don't close the border, just be careful.



There's more.

[Deadskins]

Trump's senior campaign adviser:
“Oh please, this ‘words matter’ stuff, I mean, this is ridiculous,”


As a preamble to what follows:
"The classic conservative belief, by contrast, is that character is destiny. Temperament is foundational. Each candidate has to cross some basic threshold of dependability as a human being before it’s even relevant to judge his or her policy agenda. Trump doesn’t cross that threshold."



IMMIGRATION
1. Build a wall, deport all undocumented immigrants.

2. Deport all undocumented immigrants but bring the 'good' ones back legally.

3. Build the wall, deport criminals, triple the number of ICE officers, end birthright citizenship.

4. Use a deportation force to implement policy.

5. Trump might be flexible on actually deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants.

6. Deport undocumented immigrants, but don't call it "mass deportations."

7. A deportation force is "TBD."

8. "I'm gonna do the same" as past presidents.

9. I'm open to "softening."

10. "There's no amnesty" but "we work with them."

11. Deport "criminal illegal immigrants" within one hour of being sworn in.

12. A deportation force is not currently being discussed.

13. The plan — whatever the plan is — has never changed.


PROPOSED MUSLIM BAN
1. No Muslims should be allowed to enter the United States —as immigrants or visitors.

2. Ban Muslims from entering but make an exception for friends and Muslims serving in the US military.

3. The Muslim ban was just an suggestion.

4. Ban Muslims as a matter of policy, as well as people from countries with a history of terrorism.

5. Ban people from countries with a history of terrorism.

6. Ban Muslims from countries with a history of terrorism, and potentially also other Muslims.

7. The Muslim ban was never about Muslims.

8. Nothing has changed, nothing to see here.

9. The ban is negotiable.

10. The ban would call for "extreme vetting."

11. The ban hasn't changed, I just don't like saying the word "Muslim."

12. There's a ban, plus "extreme vetting" that includes an ideological test.


TAXES
1. The wealthy should pay more.

2. Cut taxes for the wealthy big time.

3. People like me should pay more.

4. I never said that! Cut everyone's taxes!

5. Maybe don't slash taxes by $10 trillion — slash taxes by $3 trillion, instead.

6. Scrap the earlier plan entirely. Here are new tax brackets.


DEFEATING ISIS
1. Maybe send troops in. Definitely go after the oil fields.

2. Bomb the oil fields. Send some troops in.

3. Send troops to defeat ISIS. Don't forget about the oil fields.

4. Destroy the oil. Let our regional allies send ground troops. If they don't, stop buying their oil.

5. Declare war, send in some troops.


VOTING FOR THE IRAQ WAR
1. Clinton voted for the war, so she has bad judgment.

(by the way, the war actually never came up for a vote)

"It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started," he falsely stated in his June 22 speech. (There is no evidence he opposed the invasion, but there is ample evidence that he supported it.)

2. It doesn't matter, people make mistakes.

Pressed on his running mate Pence's vote for the Iraq war in an interview on 60 Minutes, Trump said in July he didn't "care" because "it's a long time ago, and he voted that way and they were also misled."

"He's entitled to make a mistake every once in a while," Trump declared, telling CBS' Lesley Stahl of Clinton that "no, she's not" allowed to make a mistake herself.



GUNS
1. Get rid of gun-free zones.

2. No guns in classrooms, except maybe some guns in classrooms.

3. I'm not advocating for guns in classrooms, but wait, yes I am.

4. Let's put trained gunmen in schools.

5. We should only get rid of some gun-free zones.

6. More guns would save lives.

7. I didn't actually mean arming clubgoers.



2011 INTERVENTION IN LIBYA
1. The intervention in Libya by the U.S.-led coalition was a terrible idea.

2. I've never offered a different opinion on Libya.

3. I guess I did support an intervention.

4. I wanted a surgical intervention, not a "strong" intervention.



JAPAN AND NUKES
1. Japan should have nuclear weapons.

2. I never said that!



CLIMATE CHANGE
1. I don't believe in it.

2. Global warming is threatening one of my golf courses.



NATIONAL DEBT
1. Get rid of the national debt in 8 years.

2. Only pay down a little. Invest in infrastructure first.

3. Pay off the debt by getting America's creditors to accept less.

4. Don't worry about it — the U.S. can't default because we "print the money."

5. I won't try to renegotiate the national debt.

6. Take out new loans and pay back debt with new debt.



ABORTION
1. Criminalize women who have abortions.

2. Let the states decide what to do about criminalizing abortion.

3. Never mind. Don't punish the women.



VIOLATING U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS WITH REGARD TO TORTURE, TERRORISM
1. The military will obey potentially illegal orders.

2. The military shouldn't break the law, after all.

3. The laws forbidding torture should be changed so no one has to break them.



VISAS FOR HIGH-SKILLED WORKERS
1. H-1B visas are bad for American workers.

2. H-1B visas are good.

3. H-1B visas are still bad, according to Trump's unchanged website.

4. H-1B visas are necessary: 'I'm changing.'

5. H-1B visas are definitely bad.



BORDER CONTROL AND THE REFUGEE CRISIS
1. The U.S. has a 'humanitarian' obligation to take in some Syrian refugees.

2. The U.S. cannot and should not accept Syrian refugees.

3. Close the border.

4. Don't close the border, just be careful.



There's more.

Much more, but two things jumped out at me.

DEFEATING ISIS

You forgot to mention that he knows more than the Generals do.

and

VOTING FOR THE IRAQ WAR
1. Clinton voted for the war, so she has bad judgment.

(by the way, the war actually never came up for a vote)

...

Pressed on his running mate Pence's vote for the Iraq war in an interview on 60 Minutes, Trump said in July he didn't "care" because "it's a long time ago, and he voted that way and they were also misled."

I thought there was no vote.

[DarthMonk]

DEFEATING ISIS

You forgot to mention that he knows more than the Generals do.

Maybe he hasn't contradicted himself on that ... yet. Or maybe it was "just a suggestion."

[Deadskins]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trum ... sm-remark/

Unbelievable!

[Countertrey]

JV Team.

Hillary = more of the same.

Trump = not Hillary.

[Deadskins]

Since the mainstream media is so obviously biased against Trump, one has to wonder why he's not being hammered daily about his obvious ties to both the American and Russian mafias.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/201 ... afia-ties/
http://reverbpress.com/world/donald-tru ... candidate/
http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trum ... t-hearing/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... inked-mob/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ime-213910
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/how ... o-the-mob/

[DarthMonk]

MANHEIM, Penn. — For a second night in a row, Donald Trump told a vastly white audience of supporters on Saturday that they should go to neighborhoods other than their own on Election Day and "watch." Trump didn't elaborate on what they should watch for, telling his crowd in this rural Pennsylvania town that he didn't want to lose the election "because of you know what I'm talking about." Trump's comments were interpreted by voting-rights advocates and others as a subtle but menacing call for his supporters to intimidate at the polls. "You've got to go out, and you've got to get your friends, and you've got to get everybody you know, and you gotta watch the polling booths, because I hear too many stories about Pennsylvania, certain areas," Trump said during a rambling speech. "I hear too many bad stories, and we can't lose an election because of you know what I'm talking about. So, go and vote and then go check out areas because a lot of bad things happen, and we don't want to lose for that reason. We don't want to lose — but especially, we don't want to lose for that reason. So go over and watch. And watch carefully, because we're going to win the state of Pennsylvania." On Friday night, Trump made a similar comment during a rally in the Detroit suburb of Novi. "You've been reading the same stories as I've been reading, so go to your place and vote, and then go pick some other place, and go sit there with your friends and make sure it's on the up and up," Trump said. "Because you know what? That’s a big, big problem in this country, and nobody wants to talk about it. Nobody has the guts to talk about it. So go and watch these polling places. Make sure it’s on the up and up. Please. That would one hell of a way to lose.”

Jerk.

[Deadskins]

What exactly can you watch for? People lined up to vote? How about voter intimidation?

[emoses14]

I have good news and I have bad news.

The good news is Trump will not be your next president.

The bad news is Hillary will be.

[SkinsJock]

^^ totally agree - I do not see any way that Trump wins enough electoral votes

there will be more people voting against Trump rather than for HC - nobody with any sense wants her to be President - most voters are scared of what Trump might be like as President

it's not "bad" that the lying slut becomes President, it's a horror show - the only good thing will be that there is absolutely no way that the country will put her back in office in 4 years

[DarthMonk]

Anybody had enough yet?

My most conservative friend just texted me that's he's writing in Pence.

[DarthMonk]

What the mic captured during the 2005 ‘Access Hollywood’ segment:

Donald Trump: You know and—

Unidentified voice: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.

Trump: I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and *f$ck* her. She was married.

Unidentified voice: That’s huge news there.

Trump: No, no. Nancy. No this was— And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as *sh$t*. In the purple.

Trump: Whoa!

Bush: Yes. Yes, the Donald has scored!

Trump: Whoa!

Bush: Whoa, my man!

Unidentified voice: Wait, wait you’ve got to look at me when you get out and be like ... will you give me the thumbs up? You’ve got to put the thumbs up.

[crosstalk]

Trump: Look at you. You are a pussy.

[crosstalk]

Unidentified voice: You’ve got to get the thumbs up. You can’t be too happy, man.

Trump: Alright, you and I will walk down.

[crosstalk]

Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s her.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

[crosstalk and chuckling]

Unidentified voice: Yeah those legs, all I can see is the legs.

Trump: Oh, it looks good.

Unidentified voice: Come on, shorty.

Trump: Oh, nice legs, huh?

Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.

Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford. Gerald Ford, remember?

[Countertrey]

Anybody had enough yet?

My most conservative friend just texted me that's he's writing in Pence.

Your most conservative friend probably voted for Sanders...

[DarthMonk]

Anybody had enough yet?

My most conservative friend just texted me that's he's writing in Pence.

Your most conservative friend probably voted for Sanders...

Good one.

McCain, Romney, etc.

[Deadskins]

It takes a special kind of person to vote for Trump at this point. Hatred of Hilary should not be enough.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

All other arguments aside, according to economists on both sides of the aisle the Trump economic plan would cost American taxpayers (who actually pay their taxes) $7.2 trillion dollars over the next decade while giving massive tax cuts to the top 0.1% of over a million dollars a year. The middle class would get $1,000 in tax breaks and the poor would get $100 in tax breaks but the middle class would pay for all of it.

If you can vote for that you must be in the top 0.1% tax bracket.

[DarthMonk]

Donald Trump’s dangerous ploy to destabilize democracy

INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES teach their officers how to respond in case of exposure: Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations. While perhaps good advice in the amoral context of espionage, these are not, or should not be, words to live by for those who take part in democratic politics. Yet when Republican Donald Trump was outed as a serial abuser of women, first by his own words and then by testimony from a lengthening list of alleged victims, he responded with tactics worthy of the Russian ex-KGB man Vladi­mir Putin, whose leadership he so admires. Mr. Trump branded the women liars and blamed “the establishment and their media enablers” for the purported smear.

One reason to believe the charges is Mr. Trump’s own repugnant boast, captured on videotape in 2005 and first reported a week ago by The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, about how he likes to “grab” women by their private parts and force himself on them, as an exercise of his “star” power. Lacking the decency to take responsibility for this, beyond a thin layer of apology in a thick sandwich of excuse-making, Mr. Trump went on to compound verbally the insult he already inflicted on his victims, through his conduct, with predictable attacks on their veracity, motives and, of course, appearance. Thus did the GOP nominee further confirm his unfitness for the White House, as well as the cravenness of those elected leaders in his party who continue to endorse him.

And then Mr. Trump, speaking Thursday in West Palm Beach, Fla., escalated: Beyond merely denying the truth of the allegations about his treatment of women, he recast them as evidence that U.S. democracy itself is no longer legitimate. Follow the logic here, if you can: The country is under the control of a conspiracy, involving not just his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the media, but also the entire political “establishment,” Republicans included, in league with unnamed international banks, whose goal is to enrich themselves by controlling “the central base of world political power . . . right here in America” and imposing “radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people.” Mr. Trump, and the “movement” he heads, are all that stand in the way of this evil cabal. This election, therefore, is no ordinary political contest but “a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over our government.” Ergo, the cabal will destroy Mr. Trump by “slander” — unless the people stand up and resist “a small handful of global special interests rigging the system.”

This language — which he read from a prepared text fed into a teleprompter — is inflammatory beyond any demagoguery Mr. Trump had offered previously. Coupled with his repeated warnings, echoed by his followers, that the Democrats may be cooking up Election Day fraud, the speech seems to prepare the ground for resistance in the increasingly likely event that things don’t go his way Nov. 8. Indeed, anyone who agrees that the alternative to a Trump victory is civilizational disaster, the fruit of a “sinister deal,” as Mr. Trump put it in another Florida speech, would feel obligated to deny the legitimacy of a Clinton victory, should it occur. Trump-for-President is not a campaign to redeem American democracy or even to “take it back,” as Mr. Trump puts it; it has morphed into a campaign of destabilization.

Mr. Trump’s words seek to make accomplices of his listeners. Anyone who challenges the cabal “is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed,” he told the West Palm Beach audience. “They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and your family, they will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation.” As if the assembled Trumpkins were just as guilty as he of all those alleged sins.

A greater measure of accountability belongs to the men and women who purport to lead the GOP faithful, and have, with a few honorable exceptions, so manifestly failed the moral test Mr. Trump’s candidacy poses. We are well past the point of urging these politicians to repudiate Mr. Trump for the good of the country, their party and themselves. Frankly, it’s hard to keep track of where some of them stand on that question: Several prominent Republicans, including two U.S. senators, John Thune of South Dakota and Deb Fischer of Nebraska, called on Mr. Trump to resign his candidacy after the 2005 recording became public — then crawled back into the fold, under pressure from the pro-Trump Republican rank and file.

Still, it is not too late even for these GOP politicians to repudiate Mr. Trump’s conspiratorial view of the American political process. They should at least find the decency, and the patriotism, to declare that everyone must respect the results on Nov. 8 — and pursue any protests or disputes through legal channels, not in the streets. Even if Republicans can’t bring themselves to part ways politically with Mr. Trump, they can refuse to cooperate in the trashing of our public discourse and essential civic traditions. Surely that is not too much to ask.

[DarthMonk]

All other arguments aside, according to economists on both sides of the aisle the Trump economic plan would cost American taxpayers (who actually pay their taxes) $7.2 trillion dollars over the next decade while giving massive tax cuts to the top 0.1% of over a million dollars a year. The middle class would get $1,000 in tax breaks and the poor would get $100 in tax breaks but the middle class would pay for all of it.

If you can vote for that you must be in the top 0.1% tax bracket.

Funny how a tax cut is a hand out until you put three more zeros after it. Then it is an incentive to invest.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

All other arguments aside, according to economists on both sides of the aisle the Trump economic plan would cost American taxpayers (who actually pay their taxes) $7.2 trillion dollars over the next decade while giving massive tax cuts to the top 0.1% of over a million dollars a year. The middle class would get $1,000 in tax breaks and the poor would get $100 in tax breaks but the middle class would pay for all of it.

If you can vote for that you must be in the top 0.1% tax bracket.

Funny how a tax cut is a hand out until you put three more zeros after it. Then it is an incentive to invest.

I was around for Reagan. I know how that scam works, or rather doesn't work.

[DEHog]

I think I'm going to follow Kap and take a knee on November 8th!