John Oliver: Make Donald "Drumpf" Again
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5637750abd86ef185c8bb509/donald-trump-and-john-oliver-fought-it-out-on-twitter-over-the-weekend.jpg)
"Our main story was about Donald Trump. We can't believe we're saying that either."
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-feb-john-oliver-make-donald-drumpf-again (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-feb-john-oliver-make-donald-drumpf-again)
Wow, hilarious!
Hilarious and spot on. If you still vote for this guy after watching this I don't know what else to tell you.
That has to be one of the more insightful episodes of John Oliver's show. Almost as head-turning as the one about the Miss America pageants and their college scholarship funding claims.
Actually, there were a couple of inconsistencies in the video:
For one, Oliver says that Trump always threatens to sue but never does, then a while later he does mention how Trump sued and lost.
Then on the question of campaign financing: He disputes Trump's claim of being self funded. While that part may very well be true, I believe the main point Trump is making is that he does not have any large donors and Oliver does not specifically address this, just stating that Trump did receive over 7 Million in campaign donations. What I would have liked to know is where those predominantly small donation or did the Koch brother hit the donate button repeatedly on Trump's campaign web site.
That would indeed be interesting.
Quote from: Gunnar on February 29, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
Actually, there were a couple of inconsistencies in the video:
For one, Oliver says that Trump always threatens to sue but never does, then a while later he does mention how Trump sued and lost.
Then on the question of campaign financing: He disputes Trump's claim of being self funded. While that part may very well be true, I believe the main point Trump is making is that he does not have any large donors and Oliver does not specifically address this, just stating that Trump did receive over 7 Million in campaign donations. What I would have liked to know is where those predominantly small donation or did the Koch brother hit the donate button repeatedly on Trump's campaign web site.
That would indeed be interesting.
NY Times ran an article stating the Kochs are furious at Trump. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0)
QuoteThe party's biggest benefactors remain totally opposed to him. At a recent presentation hosted by the billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, the country's most prolific conservative donors, their political advisers characterized Mr. Trump's record as utterly unacceptable, and highlighted his support for government-funded business subsidies and government-backed health care, according to people who attended.
I find it all hilarious.
The Repubs think he is not presidential and too liberal.
The Dems think he is a fascist.
You know, when 2 establishments fear the same person, who owes nothing to either one, you begin to see why they fear him.
No political chips to cover, say what you think, but not what you mean.
But the US Government is designed to handle these kind of personalities if & when they become president.
James Madison was a brilliant man, and when he theorized how the new country should create a balance of power, he had these guys in mind.
Ultimately, Trump is a deal maker who like an elephant (pun intended) wants to threaten their enemies will shake the dust off their ears, but ultimately will trade up with the peanuts offered by Congress.
Quote from: stephendare on February 29, 2016, 10:09:03 PM
Quote from: spuwho on February 29, 2016, 10:00:10 PM
I find it all hilarious.
The Repubs think he is not presidential and too liberal.
The Dems think he is a fascist.
You know, when 2 establishments fear the same person, who owes nothing to either one, you begin to see why they fear him.
No political chips to cover, say what you think, but not what you mean.
But the US Government is designed to handle these kind of personalities if & when they become president.
James Madison was a brilliant man, and when he theorized how the new country should create a balance of power, he had these guys in mind.
Ultimately, Trump is a deal maker who like an elephant (pun intended) wants to threaten their enemies will shake the dust off their ears, but ultimately will trade up with the peanuts offered by Congress.
James Madison didn't turn a blind eye when journalists like the Time Photographer today were beaten and choked by a candidates thugs, spuwho. This isn't partisan politics as usual.
Bullying takes on different forms, some are physical, some are linguistic; (stick and stones?)
Hillary's campaign has banned the following words to be used in covering her presidential effort as they are considered "coded sexism"
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/281081-clinton-fans-banning-words-call-coded-sexism/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/281081-clinton-fans-banning-words-call-coded-sexism/)
NY Times Political Reporter, Amy Chozick was warned by one of the Dem mouthpieces. Here are the words the group says can't be used to describe Clinton:
QuoteAmbitious
Calculating
Disingenuous
Entitled
Insincere
Out of Touch
Over Confident
Polarizing
Represent the Past
Secretive
Will Do Anything to Win
Quote from: stephendare on February 29, 2016, 10:28:20 PM
how did we go from beating and choking to a more generic term like 'bullying'?
I thought I was fairly specific as to what happened.
Are you saying that word choice nannyism is somehow the same thing as beating and choking a professional journalist?
Darn it, that redirect method in blogging that you taught me isn't working tonight. :)
"word choice nannyism"
Since I don't think they set out to murder the journalist, bullying would have to take the next place in the realm of adequate descriptions.
Quote from: spuwho on February 29, 2016, 10:00:10 PM
Ultimately, Trump is a deal maker who like an elephant (pun intended) wants to threaten their enemies will shake the dust off their ears, but ultimately will trade up with the peanuts offered by Congress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8c2Cq-vpg
I think SM covers your point in the first 4-5 minutes and goes on for over an hour pointing out Trump's manipulation of the media from his own playbook, "The Art of the Deal" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/06/17/how-donald-trump-plays-the-press-in-his-own-words/).
https://www.youtube.com/v/Gw8c2Cq-vpg?
I'll just leave this here: http://i.imgur.com/N5dYr9c.png In the video, you can clearly see the reporter grabbing him first & the agent quickly reacting. I'd expect nothing less from these guys with anyone to be honest. If I grabbed an agent like that, I'm gonna assume he's gonna slam me.
Also, I don't get the left's anti-Trump position. For years we've all been talking about how corrupt the establishment GOP is. Here comes a guy outta nowhere who's self funded who's kicking them all in the balls, calling the Bush family lying war mongers in a televised debate in the heart of Bush country (and still won SC), for Planned Parenthood, etc & basically burning them to the ground. That's not an endorsement, but if he's able to do that (which he seems to be going to), then god bless him. It needed to happen years ago. When the media has resorted to throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him & nothing sticks, that's probably a good indication that he's onto something the establishment doesn't like.
Here's a good article about it from the left's point of view & it basically blames the current state of the tired GOP: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224
I think the left is mostly scared that he'll actually win the Presidency. After Trump runs the board on Super Tuesday & Bernie drops out (and he will, it'll become clear then that it'll be impossible for him to win), it'll just be Trump & Clinton. I see many (not all, but many) voting Trump in the general because they fucking hate Hillary (I mean they REALLY hate her). They'll do it purely for spite & a "burn it to the ground" viewpoint. Trump will also totally stick the knife in & twist it during those debates with her, saying things that no other candidate would dare to say. All leading Trump to win the nomination. Mark it down.
Quoteread the above psu. your claim has already been discredited
Where exactly? I'm not seeing it.
QuoteIts the Republicans freaking out about him at the moment because he is destroying their party.
The Republican establishment is, not Republicans in general. Most realize it needs a shakeup. Granted, they probably wanted a better choice than Trump to do that.
QuoteAnd if you think a mafia dealing, con man and pathological liar with no problem roughing up journalists who appeals to racism and xenophobia is going to clean up corruption you are sadly mistaken.
What racist/xenophobic comments specifically has he ever made? Not saying he hasn't, you may know more than me since I don't follow him/politics too closely. I don't think being against open borders counts as xenophobic.
Leftists with brains are afraid of Trump, because *everyone* with a brain is afraid of Trump. Him taking a few positions they agree with doesn't move him past the fact that he's a populist charlatan who appeals to the worst tendencies of the electorate and says whatever he thinks will get him the most attention.
Quote from: peestandingup on March 01, 2016, 10:29:32 AM
What racist/xenophobic comments specifically has he ever made? Not saying he hasn't, you may know more than me since I don't follow him/politics too closely. I don't think being against open borders counts as xenophobic.
I imagine his statement that Mexican immigrants are "bringing drugs, bringing crime, they're rapists" would qualify, along with his claims that he will keep Muslims out, and his recent refusal to disavow David Duke and white supremacists.
Does this guy have a single positive attribute? Seriously?
Watch the above video that I posted.
If you open it up you'll see that most of the media's talking points are completely debunked v/s what was said v/s what was printed.
It's broken down in PP fashion with quick-links to some of the main talking points.
The only people who are afraid of the guy are the established politicians. I've felt this way for a while - I don't care who wins POTUS as long as it's Sanders or Trump.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 01, 2016, 11:12:13 AM
The only people who are afraid of the guy are the established politicians. I've felt this way for a while - I don't care who wins POTUS as long as it's Sanders or Trump.
That's funny. Bernie and Trump are both tapping into the anti-establishment populist movement. Both Republicans and Democrats have been let down by their candidates in the past. Promises swept away for payoffs to the oligarchy.
The irony though is that they couldn't be more opposite in terms of political ideology. Bernie has a very strict belief and policy pattern. Trump, well, I like Mark Bowden's description in Vanity Fair:
QuoteHis latest outrageous edict on banning all Muslims from entering the country comes as no surprise to me based on the man I met nearly 20 years ago. He has no coherent political philosophy, so comparisons with Fascist leaders miss the mark. He just reacts. Trump lives in a fantasy of perfection, with himself as its animating force.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-mark-bowden-playboy-profile (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-mark-bowden-playboy-profile)
QuoteWith much of Trump's campaign revolving around his near-constant demonization of reporters, restrictions on the media and appeals to callous authoritarianism, perhaps this response shouldn't be surprising. But it reflects an environment in which people feel comfortable saying it's OK to use physical violence -- and perhaps even violate someone's rights -- to put those who would challenge authority in their place.
Later video would show that the agent grabbed Morris around the neck and threw him on the ground first. Morris then got up and put a hand to the agent's throat, "in order to demonstrate the choke hold he had just experienced," according to a statement from Time.
Yeah, it seems by watching the extended clip the photog put his hands on the agent after he got slammed (so I was wrong there). I still can't tell what happened before that or if the photog put his hands on him first (they're hidden from view). Still, I wouldn't know what Trump has to do with that since he didn't command him to do so & its between the agent/the photog. The agent does seem outta line though. That's not cool.
Quoteand his recent refusal to disavow David Duke and white supremacists.
See, this is kinda my point. He did disavow as soon as he heard about it. It was at the Chris Christie endorsement q&a (and its on video, look for the full event vid). Then the very next day the media & GOP establishment (who came outta the woodwork for this) was making headlines pretending they didn't hear it. And its been parroted ever since. How many times should he be required to say it before the media actually reports it?
Its obvious, blatantly so, that all the hit pieces from news, media & old crows at the GOP that's happened over the last few days leading up to Super Tuesday is for a reason. They're making a last ditch effort to derail him, and it wont work. They're too late & they underestimated him from the beginning, and overvalued their old party talking points. I'm not saying some of the criticism isn't warranted, and god knows there's a lot you could go after him on. But like I said, that should show you the deep collusion between the party leaders & the media in general, which is something we can all agree needs to stop whatever side you're on.
I don't care either way, and I'm not particularly a fan. I'm just telling you what's happening & what I think is going to happen.
EDIT: Here's the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXOkKMwIBo8&t=13m24s
Quote from: peestandingup on March 01, 2016, 12:15:24 PM
QuoteWith much of Trump's campaign revolving around his near-constant demonization of reporters, restrictions on the media and appeals to callous authoritarianism, perhaps this response shouldn't be surprising. But it reflects an environment in which people feel comfortable saying it's OK to use physical violence -- and perhaps even violate someone's rights -- to put those who would challenge authority in their place.
Later video would show that the agent grabbed Morris around the neck and threw him on the ground first. Morris then got up and put a hand to the agent's throat, "in order to demonstrate the choke hold he had just experienced," according to a statement from Time.
Yeah, it seems by watching the extended clip the photog put his hands on the agent after he got slammed (so I was wrong there). I still can't tell what happened before that or if the photog put his hands on him first (they're hidden from view). Still, I wouldn't know what Trump has to do with that since he didn't command him to do so & its between the agent/the photog. The agent does seem outta line though. That's not cool.
Quoteand his recent refusal to disavow David Duke and white supremacists.
See, this is kinda my point. He did disavow as soon as he heard about it. It was at the Chris Christie endorsement q&a (and its on video, look for the full event vid). Then the very next day the media & GOP establishment (who came outta the woodwork for this) was making headlines pretending they didn't hear it. And its been parroted ever since. How many times should he be required to say it before the media actually reports it?
Its obvious, blatantly so, that all the hit pieces from news, media & old crows at the GOP that's happened over the last few days leading up to Super Tuesday is for a reason. They're making a last ditch effort to derail him, and it wont work. They're too late & they underestimated him from the beginning, and overvalued their old party talking points. I'm not saying some of the criticism isn't warranted, and god knows there's a lot you could go after him on. But like I said, that should show you the deep collusion between the party leaders & the media in general, which is something we can all agree needs to stop whatever side you're on.
I don't care either way, and I'm not particularly a fan. I'm just telling you what's happening & what I think is going to happen.
EDIT: Here's the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXOkKMwIBo8&t=13m24s
I meant refusing to disavow David Duke in that first interview. He knew exactly who David Duke was, he pays people to keep on top of that stuff for him, and he's been quoted criticizing Duke in the past. And clearly he knows what "white supremacy" means. He only disavowed it later when he got called on it - that's the issue. He's catering to people's worst tendencies, by design. This is a legitimate criticism - in fact, most of the points of criticism against him have been. The only question is why it didn't happen to this extent until recently. The GOP clearly underestimated him (or wishfully hoped he'd go away) but the media is another question.
QuoteHe only disavowed it later when he got called on it - that's the issue.
No, he actually did it the day it happened at that Christie rally I linked to, well before that interview you're alluding to. And as you've said, he's been on record from the past disavowing him well before this. So again, how many times should he talk about some loser ex KKK member nobody cares about before it satisfies everyone?
Granted Trump was probably playing dumb during that later interview & deflecting. He obviously knows who he is & what white supremcy is. The interviewer was asking him to disavow any group that he (the interviewer) deems questionable & tell them all right then & there not to vote for him. Trump said to send them who these groups were & he could answer the question. That's normal political stuff & there's really nothing to see here.
Anyways, Duke left & denounced the KKK decades ago for their hate & violence, just like Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (which of whom the Clintons were pretty cozy with), or Dems playing up to black lives matter (who have had members say/do some really hate-filled racist things). No one talks about those though.
Quote from: peestandingup on March 01, 2016, 03:12:15 PM
QuoteHe only disavowed it later when he got called on it - that's the issue.
No, he actually did it the day it happened at that Christie rally I linked to, well before that interview you're alluding to. And as you've said, he's been on record from the past disavowing him well before this. So again, how many times should he talk about some loser ex KKK member nobody cares about before it satisfies everyone?
Granted Trump was probably playing dumb during that later interview & deflecting. He obviously knows who he is & what white supremcy is. The interviewer was asking him to disavow any group that he (the interviewer) deems questionable & tell them all right then & there not to vote for him. Trump said to send them who these groups were & he could answer the question. That's normal political stuff & there's really nothing to see here.
Anyways, Duke left & denounced the KKK decades ago for their hate & violence, just like Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (which of whom the Clintons were pretty cozy with), or Dems playing up to black lives matter (who have had members say/do some really hate-filled racist things). No one talks about those though.
He was deflecting, and that's the issue. He goes whichever way the mop flops on the white supremacy issue: Friday (and before) he knew who Duke was and disavowed his support (in a wishy washy way), Sunday he didn't know him and wouldn't disavow him, and Monday he disavowed him again after getting crap for it. If this was some other issue, it wouldn't be news, but he's the only candidate in the country who wouldn't immediately distance themself from white supremacists (Duke is still one, regardless of leaving the KKK, and he's not the only one who's expressed support for Trump). At any rate it's a symptom of the bigger issue. It's part of the pattern of all the other crap he says to appeal to the worst in American voters.
They ALL do it. Trump is no different. Its like when a reporter asked Hillary if she wiped the data clean on her email server prior to having it seized & she replied "like, with a cloth or something??" looking as if she didn't understand what they meant, then deflection.
I mean, we could give examples of stuff like this all day with every candidate/politician in history. All of them.
^They all do it, just not on the matter of support from white supremacists.
^^^^ Sounds like you think you're better than the white supremacists.
Wouldn't that make you a white supremacists white supremacist?
I'm with Spy. He's a short fingered vulgarian and that's about it.......
Quote from: peestandingup on March 01, 2016, 08:17:59 AM
I think the left is mostly scared that he'll actually win the Presidency. After Trump runs the board on Super Tuesday & Bernie drops out (and he will, it'll become clear then that it'll be impossible for him to win), it'll just be Trump & Clinton. I see many (not all, but many) voting Trump in the general because they fucking hate Hillary (I mean they REALLY hate her). They'll do it purely for spite & a "burn it to the ground" viewpoint. Trump will also totally stick the knife in & twist it during those debates with her, saying things that no other candidate would dare to say. All leading Trump to win the nomination. Mark it down.
Hi, guys.
Quote from: peestandingup on November 09, 2016, 03:29:20 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on March 01, 2016, 08:17:59 AM
I think the left is mostly scared that he'll actually win the Presidency. After Trump runs the board on Super Tuesday & Bernie drops out (and he will, it'll become clear then that it'll be impossible for him to win), it'll just be Trump & Clinton. I see many (not all, but many) voting Trump in the general because they fucking hate Hillary (I mean they REALLY hate her). They'll do it purely for spite & a "burn it to the ground" viewpoint. Trump will also totally stick the knife in & twist it during those debates with her, saying things that no other candidate would dare to say. All leading Trump to win the nomination. Mark it down.
Hi, guys.
crickets
Quote from: bill on November 09, 2016, 03:32:16 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on November 09, 2016, 03:29:20 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on March 01, 2016, 08:17:59 AM
I think the left is mostly scared that he'll actually win the Presidency. After Trump runs the board on Super Tuesday & Bernie drops out (and he will, it'll become clear then that it'll be impossible for him to win), it'll just be Trump & Clinton. I see many (not all, but many) voting Trump in the general because they fucking hate Hillary (I mean they REALLY hate her). They'll do it purely for spite & a "burn it to the ground" viewpoint. Trump will also totally stick the knife in & twist it during those debates with her, saying things that no other candidate would dare to say. All leading Trump to win the nomination. Mark it down.
Hi, guys.
crickets
Meh. It's to he expected.
And I'm really not trying to toot my own horn, but I've been saying this since Oct of last year. This is a classic case of the left believing their own hype, being dismissive & not recognizing the state of the average voter across the country.
It was enviable. I don't normally make bold predictions, but it was crystal clear to me what was happening. I wouldn't have said it otherwise.
You had a 50/50 chance of getting it right. I have a hard time believing you had any greater insight than people who do this for a living.
If you had got it wrong, you'd be on here explaining how your opinion was correct at the time or something - or how the election was stolen, etc.
Quote from: Adam White on November 09, 2016, 05:20:07 AM
You had a 50/50 chance of getting it right. I have a hard time believing you had any greater insight than people who do this for a living.
If you had got it wrong, you'd be on here explaining how your opinion was correct at the time or something - or how the election was stolen, etc.
Sure Adam. Except I've been say this for many months (feel free to check my history). Were the other points lucky guesses too? I don't post often, so it shouldn't be too difficult.
Speaking to that, why would I? I was basically dismissed (and sometimes attacked) by 90% of this board for simply telling people these things. Then watching day after day of the stories & headlines being posted from the typical junk media outlets, rinse, repeat. It was this dismissiveness, and frankly arrogance, that lost the left elections far & wide, including the POTUS. Not to mention they had a completely shit candidate buried with actual real scandals & collusions.
So yeah. The left is gonna have to do some soul searching, cut the rhetoric, and figure out where to go from here. Again, I've been saying this exact thing for a long long time, and its come to roost.
They did this. Don't forget it.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
QuoteIt was this dismissiveness, and frankly arrogance, that lost the left elections far & wide, including the POTUS. Not to mention they had a completely shit candidate buried with actual real scandals & collusions.
Rural america and the forgotten "flyovers" roared...
Quote from: peestandingup on November 09, 2016, 08:57:28 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 09, 2016, 05:20:07 AM
You had a 50/50 chance of getting it right. I have a hard time believing you had any greater insight than people who do this for a living.
If you had got it wrong, you'd be on here explaining how your opinion was correct at the time or something - or how the election was stolen, etc.
It was this dismissiveness, and frankly arrogance, that lost the left elections far & wide, including the POTUS. Not to mention they had a completely shit candidate buried with actual real scandals & collusions.
Again - I think you were just repeating talking points and had it turned out the other way, you'd have your excuses.
Clinton is expected to win the popular vote. And I would argue that the "left" (as you call them) haven't lost "far and wide" at all - the Democrats are expected to gain a seat in the Senate and seven in the House (some of this may change, of course).
Obviously the Democrats didn't do as well as they had hoped to - but they weren't routed by any means.
I agree that people have been underestimating Trump and it ultimately proved their downfall. That and picking a terrible candidate.
I thought this was an interesting opinion piece this morning:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
QuotePut this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn't all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn't accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it's time to consider whether there's something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.
The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these Democrats are the "last thing standing" between us and the end of the world. It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington system. Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class virtue. Enough!
Instead of listening to the rust belt working people, the democrats wrote them off as flyover bigots. Biden warned against this back in the early summer.